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.

@mh-7635 said:

I like the idea that one should be able to demonstrate flexibility in composing in everyclassical 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.

Anand and Mike,

Yes, I agree, we cannot move forward from the past until we have absorbed the techniques, aethetics and forms of the past. I remember when I was working on my college degree in music composition how the professors seemed obsessed with dodecaphonic music, some even considered it the only "serious" form of modern classical music. I pointed out to one of my advisors that many outstanding composers from past eras drew freely from the folk and "earthy" music of their own time and place, so why should we, in the 20th century western world, not draw from the rich influences of rock n roll, folk music and jazz, as composers of the past freely did? He mumbled something about how this is how the bureaucracy works! ;>(

I think for many composers the task now becomes, generally speaking, to integrate the advances and innovations of chromaticism and dodecaphonicism into a tonal setting, in other words integration and fusion of ideas into a coherent gestalt of what past traditions have bequeathed to each of us. All my counterpoint students have to write a 2- and 3-part invention and a 3- and 4-voice fugue. However, there does come a point in most composer's lives where the desire to create something original takes hold, this is the point where the composer wants not only a craft, but a voice. And it is here, as Aaron Copland once pointed out when writing about listening to Chopin, that tradition doesn't give us a road map of how to proceed compositionally because 1) Copland isn't Chopin and 2) Copland doesn't live in the culture, time and place in which Chopin lived. There is wisdom and respect for the uniqueness of individuality in this way of thinking. Intuition, creativity and original thinking are required to progress from having a craft to having a voice and a craft.

I have thought more about my comments about plagiarism. It can be a harsh word as it implies some kind of moral judgement. I think a better term, that isn't so tied up with legal definitions is a "lack of ability to engage in original thinking".

The more comprehensively a student of music composition studies the music of the past, the more free they become to give expression to the new - IF genuine creative talent resides within that person. If not, they are going to merely repeat the past without originality, which says nothing bad about that person, other than the fact that their compositions are not authentic to the time and place of their life experience. Students must imitate to learn, composers must innovate to be relevant.

Jerry

@agitato said:

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.

Yes, sort of true.  I am not sure the composer hides his stealing, but rather embellishes it with something a bit different and new.

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.  

Oh my god, no, that is not what I meant.  Mahler is not only one of finest symphonic composers in the history of music, but also a highly original personality.   Sometimes a highly original mind does not take music in "entirely new directions" (Bach) and sometimes they do (Stravinsky).  Mahler's own voice comes through loud and clear on the emotional, intellectual and spiritual levels, nobody in their right mind could accuse him of plagiarism, although of course his stupid critics did because he used folk tunes in his symphonic works. 

Jerry

"I have thought more about my comments about plagiarism. It can be a harsh word as it implies some kind of moral judgement. I think a better term, that isn't so tied up with legal definitions is a "lack of ability to engage in original thinking"." -jsg

Ok, probably 'unoriginal' would have been a better choice of word than plagiarism. But I see your point. You did explain it in the previous post but I hadnt read it fully.

"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 -mh7635

This is fascinating to me. I havent studied music full time in a university but took only a few courses. so I wasnt aware that student composers, at least in some universities did not even know how to write 4 part harmony! 

If a child scribbles on a piece of paper its not art. But if Picasso scribbles, its entirely different, since his mind was highly trainined in classical painting and multiple other art forms. I was in the Picasso museum once and was blown away by his classical paintings....couldnt tell them from Rembrandt or caravaggio!  It was with that background that he broke the rules. 

Same with music. 

more later. ...

Hi again guys. I have been very-very busy this period (and still am), but came back here to quickly scan what's being said in a thread I would normally be all over. So I am not going to address everything that's been said, upon which I'd normally love to comment, and instead focus on topic - again not really explaining my position thoroughly, so if you all tell me to buzz off, I won't take offence.

I would just like to point out that in my cursory scan of this thread, I believe it is fair to say that people are not focusing so much on the thread's question "Where is music going?" - to which my answer is still 'nowhere' - but are rather referring to their own compositional credi and experiences (important to us all but not really indicative of where music is going internationally), referring to Boulez, Ligeti, Messiaen, (Ives!), composers that some may have passed away relatively recently, but had long belonged to previous generations of modernism, they were not -and are not- considered contemporary as such. Even if they threw a work here and there in their late-80s/90s, they were more venerated than considered cutting edge.

I have yet to spot a name of a composer that is considered part of mainstream modernism today (say, Ades, Saariaho, Dean, what have you, there are so so many of them getting commissioned, performed, and recorded to day), save for Salonen, let alone a composer who is on the current cutting edge of experimentation. Until this happens I cannot enter a discussion about why I believe music to be now going nowhere...

As far as the 'home-spun' philosophies of music herein proffered (no offence meant but this is more an informal discussion of friends around a table, including me), having spent an inordinate amount of time in academia and classical radio as professional producer/broadcaster who monitored current musical activity worldwide, I can tell you that if that is what you are interested in, there are endless tomes of lore (books and academic periodicals - ex. Perspectives of New Music), and even more infinite -and oftentimes- hilarious dissertations and conference papers to fill the moon with rainforests, all replete with 'proper research methodologies' and references. This would bring you up to date, if you are interested in the 'philosophical' direction music is currently taking. If you're not interested, so much the better for you, you are not missing out on much.

My decades-worth of experience has taught me what people think about their music, and what they believe it represents, is vastly different to what others aurally perceive. I cannot count how many times I have read the erudite programme notes in a concert, referring to a work inspired and constructed say by Aristoxenus', game theory's, and semasiological tenets combined, only to hear a work by someone who cannot be inspired (biologically impossible for them), cannot orchestrate, cannot write polyphonically, cannot think in a straight musical line for more than a couple of seconds. So who cares what "inspires" them if the result is utter puerility...

As far as I am concerned, I am interested in how your music sounds to begin with. If it intrigues me, then maybe I'll be interested in the structure and symbolism behind it. 'Sound' comes first, and naked - that is what I love about music. The first downbeat flushes all conceptual bullsh!t right down the toilet.

So if you are interested in what the current musical trends are (not 50-150 years ago), go to concerts, listen to the radio/YouTube, visit your local university music department, (I am actually listening to Robert Aldridge's opera Sister Carrie as I'm typing this post), and if you like what you hear, then there are tons to read about it...

@agitato said:

"I have thought more about my comments about plagiarism. It can be a harsh word as it implies some kind of moral judgement. I think a better term, that isn't so tied up with legal definitions is a "lack of ability to engage in original thinking"." -jsg

Ok, probably 'unoriginal' would have been a better choice of word than plagiarism. But I see your point. You did explain it in the previous post but I hadnt read it fully.

"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 -mh7635

This is fascinating to me. I havent studied music full time in a university but took only a few courses. so I wasnt aware that student composers, at least in some universities did not even know how to write 4 part harmony! 

If a child scribbles on a piece of paper its not art. But if Picasso scribbles, its entirely different, since his mind was highly trainined in classical painting and multiple other art forms. I was in the Picasso museum once and was blown away by his classical paintings....couldnt tell them from Rembrandt or caravaggio!  It was with that background that he broke the rules. 

Same with music. 

more later. ...

We should keep in mind that the so-called "rules" of music, i.e. classical harmony, modal, tonal and modern counterpoint, etc., are not rules at all, but rather generalizations and extrapolations based on what a given set of composers did in a certain period of music history.   The purpose of theory is not tell composers how to write music, nor is it to predict how future music should be written. The deeper and more true purpose of music theory is to teach musicians how to listen more deeply to the inner voices, to detail, to subtle levels of harmonic and melodic tension, to feel rhythm in mind and body.   The past isn't meant to be copied, it is meant to be understood and assimilated, and from that point the subjectivity and individuality of the composer takes over, or at least it ought to. 

Yet, at the same time, the "rules" often express what composers return to time and time again:  obviously there are certain patterns of sound that resonate, give us pleasure and meaning, and therefore we continue to use scales, chord structures and other musical components that have been used before..  But a good composer somehow can do this without cliche, without sounding like the music was written 100 or 200 or 300 years ago.  Ability and skill are what we acquire through education, practice and repetition, talent is what we are born with and to my mind talent is connected to the uniqueness of individual personality, or what we call originality.  Some composers have it and some do not.

I honestly don't find that Salonen piece that creative, it just sound like more early 20th century music to me

I think this Ciupinski piece is more creative. harmonically speaking it's not adventurous but the use of instruments and certainly in terms of soundscape and the way voices play with each other. the organization of the parts i suppose. i mean even the use of harmonic glissandi is in a context we don't usually here (horror etc...)

https://vimeo.com/213449699

as far as the direction of music, personally we are not going to see music get more complex on a grand scale, if the trends of music are any indication people prefer simplicity. as far as concert music goes, i think a more profound marriage between synthetic instruments and electronics and not in a noise art context, 

Re: This Ciupinski piece - very 1980s, and pleasant enough, but like a lot of music these days, so uninspired and uninteresting... No meat...

It's all subjective of course; or is it?

Thanks for sharing the Ciupinski...I havent heard of him.

Very nice piece and was a pleasure to hear, as Errikos says. Lots of interesting textures while being accessible tonally (by that I mean it has recognizable melodies)..and thats where I think Salonen is different. I find Salonen piece more tonally intriguing (i.e., less recognizable scales or patterns that you normally hear) while being texturally more restrained (although he is not so reastrained in his other peices). I think this is harder to achieve. Although this is subjective, technically I think Salonen piece is of a much higher class although I am no expert to judge.

Here is a violin+orchestra combination that is "accessible" while being very very rich and modern orchestrally:

red Violin Chaconne

@agitato said:

If a child scribbles on a piece of paper its not art. But if Picasso scribbles, its entirely different, since his mind was highly trainined in classical painting and multiple other art forms. I was in the Picasso museum once and was blown away by his classical paintings....couldnt tell them from Rembrandt or caravaggio!  It was with that background that he broke the rules. 

Same with music.

I completely disagree. A scribble is the same scribble no matter who the doodler was. If an experienced pilot crashes a plane killing all on board, it is no less of a crash because he was experienced. The idea that atonal sound is less offensive because the noise maker should have know better does not make the noise less noxious. Accepting atonal noise as art is just another sympton of the corruption of post modernist relativism.

Paul,

Noxious? corrupt? Perhaps you just do not like it and perhaps that would have been the best way to express your opinion, unless you want to be as offensive as the atonality you dislike, do you? The internet is a vehicle for free speech, so do not be surprised when insulting, demeaning adjectives like yours are challenged in an equally forthright way. I write atonally at times and I do not consider myself noxious or corrupt because of it and so find your blinkered, prejudicial comments highly offensive.

Your attitude tells me all I need to know about you and I am grateful for all the great musicians and composers of the last 100 years who are forever beyond your comprehension.

@mh-7635 said:

 

Paul,

Noxious? corrupt? Perhaps you just do not like it and perhaps that would have been the best way to express your opinion, unless you want to be as offensive as the atonality you dislike, do you? The internet is a vehicle for free speech, so do not be surprised when insulting, demeaning adjectives like yours are challenged in an equally forthright way. I write atonally at times and I do not consider myself noxious or corrupt because of it and so find your blinkered, prejudicial comments highly offensive.

Your attitude tells me all I need to know about you and I am grateful for all the great musicians and composers of the last 100 years who are forever beyond your comprehension.

Good for you MH. You have taken the high road. Instead of insulting me personally, or denigrating my knowledge, you have chosen to defend the artistic merit of ugliness. Wow, if only I was enlightened and thoughtful in my comments about noxious and corrupt music.

Just a little consideration of others would do here Paul before you upload your bigoted opinion. Otherwise flamewars start as you have found out here before.

We all have differences of opinion when it comes to music so let's be respectful to that fact and post accordingly. i said last time we spoke that my comments where not ad hominem and neither is this, although what you seem to be missing is that your comments are also a damning of composers who write atonaly too.

@mh-7635 said:

Just a little consideration of others would do here Paul before you upload your bigoted opinion. Otherwise flamewars start as you have found out here before.

We all have differences of opinion when it comes to music so let's be respectful to that fact and post accordingly. i said last time we spoke that my comments where not ad hominem and neither is this, although what you seem to be missing is that your comments are also a damning of composers who write atonaly too.

Hi mh,

Leaving sarcasm aside, despite how much fun it is, please carefully read my post and your posts.

You say I should show consideration of others, so are you showing me consideration? The only "flamewar" is being conducted by you, now isn't it? If we all have differences of opinion and should be respectful of others and post accordingly, why are you not being respectful of what you call my "opinon?" Seriously, are you being respectufl towards me?

Please look up the definition of "ad hominem." Your post is an EXACT example of an ad hominem attack. And while you keep attacking me personally, I have not "damned" any composer, even those who chose to write ugly, obnoxious and disgusting atonal music. I am damning the music. This is not a diffiuclt distinction to make. 

However, I do think that while you are looking in the dictionary for "ad hominem" you should also look up the word "hypocritical." Perhaps while you are looking in the dictionary you can find more insults to fling at me personally.  You might need some more amunition after my next paragraph. 

Atonal and avant-gard music are like a house of mirrors. The mirrors turn what is true and natural into distortion and ugliness.