@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.

I can't attack you personally Paul as I don't know you. I am attacking your position and use of inflammatory language, perhaps re-read the definition. If you don't understand that music is inextricably linked to its creator and is a distillation of personal expression then you will never accept any responsibility here for the implication of insult.

I've called you out for your opinion and you have taken it personally and now seem hell bent on stoking this  even further. Good luck with that, I can't really be bothered with your small minded aesthetics and disparaging words.

Paul and mh,

please, I think this is escalating into something unnecesary, I am sure both of you fundamentally love classical music and musical instruments and thats why we are all here. If we all got together in a concert hall we would all be friends and equally thrilled to hear any good music.

mh,

I dont think Paul meant anything personal against you. He just has a different preference on where music should go. The choice of words may not be the best, but then he is speaking his mind and thats important to know what he really feels about this.

Paul,

your views are interesting and thanks for being honest about them. I am not an avid fan of avant garde music or anything. However I find it extremely intriguing and I am infintiely curious about it, to the extent that I do not believe it is corrupt or nonsense. (You would not really call the Salonen or Ives peices atonal noise would you? If you listen to them on good speakers or headphones the sound is just AMAZING. The thing is they are using the same instruments of a classical orchestra to create the most innovative sounds. It wouldn't take much time to realize these are geniuses. 

The key is that I do not understand whats going on. For someone to criticize some piece of art, or call it nonsense, they should have understood it right? So I believe there is something there that I find very intriguiing that I do not understand and I would like to learn.

I feel about many modern works much the same way as I first heard Brahms after several years of only knowing Mozart and Beethoven. or Wagner after Brahms, or the feeling of hearing Stravinsky after hearing music up to Wagner and Mahler. The evolution of western classical music over the last 400 years is fundametally based on bold innovations in both exploring the tonal landscape and in instrumental design. As far as I know this is different from any other type of music in the world. 

 Of course, you can say it makes no sense trying to understand a 'scribble' as there is nothing meaningful in it. But you and I know when we hear Charles Ives Holiday Symphony or Salonen's violin concerto that these are no scribbles of a child. Or take this symphony of Corigliano. 

Would you also say that the Rite of Spring is corrupt? Audiences could not understand this piece in 1912, But Stravinsky was taking music in entirely new directions. It took me lots of hearing to appreciate it but once I got what he was trying to do, it just gives me goosebumps everytime I hear it. The way instruments are used, the use of polytonality, polyrhythm etc. etc.,... and the sound is truly visceral if you hear it live.

Similarly there are compoers today who are taking music in new directions. Thats the way western classical music evolves...its like engineering and science. No one can stop its growth wheather they like it or not, since it is based on curiosity and a solid structural framework that was built over centuries starting from Bach and Haydn.

Of course, its a personal choice what you prefer to listen to or create. I once knew a guy who used to hate any music that came after Beethoven, calling it pure noise.

But music will not stop!

Cheers

Anand

re you sure

@mh-7635 said:

I can't attack you personally Paul as I don't know you. I am attacking your position and use of inflammatory language, perhaps re-read the definition. If you don't understand that music is inextricably linked to its creator and is a distillation of personal expression then you will never accept any responsibility here for the implication of insult.

I've called you out for your opinion and you have taken it personally and now seem hell bent on stoking this  even further. Good luck with that, I can't really be bothered with your small minded aesthetics and disparaging words.

Hi mh,

You are correct that you do not know me. It would have been prudent to have thought about that before attacking me. So in your mind, any criticism of a piece of music is a criticism of its creator? Is that right? Are you certain you can live with that? You will never again be able to say anything critical about any piece of music without knowing that you are being critical of its creator?

I'm glad you are giving up on your "flame war" and your "calling me out", because this has gotten terribly boring.

Hi agitato,

Thanks for making the effort to be a peacemaker. Doing so is rare in our culture, almost as rare as humility, which you have also demonstrated to your credit.

I am 64. I graduated with a degree in music composition in 1976. I studied 20th century techniques extensively and graduated based on a senior recital of my own compositions, made up entirely of noxious, corrupt and ugly atonal and avant-garde music. It was not until I was older, and gained some small amount of wisdom that I realized what a fool I had been.

You mention that the "Rite" was initially rejected by many in the audience. Do you find yourself thinking this somehow makes the piece more worthy, more important? I used to think like that. But in time I realized how foolish I was. Mozart never sent audiences screaming for the exits, yet he was a true genius. Do you think less of Mozart because he was not an innovator? I used to, but I do not any longer. 

Here is a simple test to see if we can relate to each other regarding musical aesthetics. If you buy a hamburger from your favorite restaurant and open the container and find it empty, would you be happy? Wouldn't you ask for your money back? You might even want to report them to someone for fraud. With me so far?

Now imagine you are compelled to sit through 4'33" ostensibly "by" John Cage. He must have been laughing all the way to the bank at how gullible and self-righteous our musical academics have become. If you, like me, KNOW FOR A FACT that John Cage was a con man, with no further evidence needed (although there is lots more) then we might have some common ground.

Hi John

I am not a fan of 4'33'' either :) But Cage was making a point, more philosophical than musical. 

Anyways I do agree there is a lot of crap in the name of avant garde music. I really dont care for them as I do not have time to waste. As for avant garde music I am only concerned about the works of established composers of today whose music leading orchestras consider it worthy enough to play. 

Well, so it looks like its your choice to stick to more conventional classical harmony even though you have been exposed to more modern music. So thats your choice, and not a bad one at all! You could spend a lifetime writing and understanding great music in this domain...which even includes film scores....who can complain about JWs music for example, which is all mostly tonal (except some of his concert pieces)?

I find works like the Salonen concerto or Corigliano symphony infinitely intriguing, but it seems you dont care for such music. You can call 20th century music such as this any name you want, but that doesnt bother me. However that also ends the discussion between us about this topic since you have made up your mind (although I hope to discuss each others works in another thread in the future). 

Cheers 

Anand

@agitato said:

Hi John

I am not a fan of 4'33'' either 😊 But Cage was making a point, more philosophical than musical. 

Anyways I do agree there is a lot of crap in the name of avant garde music. I really dont care for them as I do not have time to waste. As for avant garde music I am only concerned about the works of established composers of today whose music leading orchestras consider it worthy enough to play. 

Well, so it looks like its your choice to stick to more conventional classical harmony even though you have been exposed to more modern music. So thats your choice, and not a bad one at all! You could spend a lifetime writing and understanding great music in this domain...which even includes film scores....who can complain about JWs music for example, which is all mostly tonal (except some of his concert pieces)?

I find works like the Salonen concerto or Corigliano symphony infinitely intriguing, but it seems you dont care for such music. You can call 20th century music such as this any name you want, but that doesnt bother me. However that also ends the discussion between us about this topic since you have made up your mind (although I hope to discuss each others works in another thread in the future). 

Cheers 

Anand

Thanks Anand, and my name is Paul. Paul T. McGraw. Good luck, and I hope you discover what you seek.

Just wanted to answer a couple of your questions:

@Another User said:

Hi agitato,

Here is a simple test to see if we can relate to each other regarding musical aesthetics. If you buy a hamburger from your favorite restaurant and open the container and find it empty, would you be happy? Wouldn't you ask for your money back? You might even want to report them to someone for fraud. With me so far?

My point is that the hamburger container has an incredibly tasty thing that I have never seen before, made of differrent ingredients, and I am curious about it.

(I am a vegetarian btw so do not really care for hamburgers anyways:))

And oh, sorry to call you John...just that I am typing this in the middle of work!