@agitato said:
Does the presence or abscence of inner hearing ability have any influence on the quality of the artisic output? On the other hand, if having an orchestra at our fingertips is really a game-changer and gives us so much power, why arent today's composers exceeding, or even matching the compositional prowess of someone like Prokofiev or Stravinsky? Just wondering.
Anand
[/quote]
I agree wholeheartedly with Guy's assessment, but would like to add some further thoughts for consideration.
First, as someone that composes concert works strictly using notation and media music strictly using a daw, I can vouch for both the different creative processes involved, as well as the stylistic output of the music that results from each method. When I compose using notation software, I hear the sounds internally, imagining the blend of timbres from the various instruments, the extended techniques and articulations each instrument will use, etc. etc. Without the benefit of VSL playback, it forces me to think idiomatically for the instruments; it forces me to do a lot more in my head, and to perhaps write with greater complexity, because I can see my notes in the score and understand the resulting harmony and counterpoint visually on "paper". In daw composition, I become more influenced/inspired by the actual sounds of the samples as I play my keyboard. In turn, I sometimes can get more creative in terms of the variety of articulations, the timbral pallette, and a myriad of other things that might simply not come to mind when writing with notation. That said, I rarely can achieve as complex a piece of music in terms of harmony, counterpoint, metre, etc. when composing in a daw.
Now as to your assertion that today's composers aren't exceeding or even matching the abilities of earlier giants, well, there's much to consider, some of which Guy mentioned. First, how many composers today are blessed with the ability to focus exclusively on creating music without worrying about a myriad of other things that distract them from music-making. Sure, distractions existed in Mozart's day too, but composers were able to earn a living through their art, whereas today, those that earn that living are rarely doing so with serious orchestral music. In other words, if the demand for such complex, developed works doesn't exist, and if the opportunities for modern composers to work with orchestras is so limited, what incentive exists for them to continually create such works and improve their craft? Further, even if they desire to improve their understanding of what works/doesn't work with a real live orchestra, they don't have the opportunity for the learning process of "demonstrate...try...feedback...revise" that composers in previous eras had. Simply put, I can't create a symphony on paper today, do an orchestral read-through tomorrow, get feedback, go home and revise the score, and repeat the process. Being "immersed" in the active learning and creative process is something modern composers can't benefit from (except with the wonders of our sample libraries).
Second, while there is in no way a diminishment of the greatness of the giants of the past, their recognition wasn't always immediate. It can take hundreds of years for their impact to be realized and written about. Furthermore, as societal values reflect the world in which we live, it's clear that modern composers today won't receive such recognition in their lifetime, save for a few individuals who can "break through the clutter" (and rarely ever do those that break through qualify as the best/most deserving individuals...see Hans Zimmer).
Third, as has been discussed ad nauseum in the "tonal vs. atonal" debate (which I don't want to revive), it is simply impossible for a composer today to write music without either being compared to those that wrote similarly in the past, or being criticized for writing music that's too "out there". Let's face it...there are twelve tones, and millions of works have been written already that exploit every possible combination of harmonic progressions, melodic lines, and rhythmic patterns. Obviously there are many more pieces to be written, but you can't reinvent the wheel when a million wheels are already out there. So, composers today face the burden of being aware of everything that came before them, and having to constantly find a way to express their voice in an authentic way, completely aware of the fact that others will judge them against that which already exists. A lot of pressure, to be sure!
Finally, think of the sheer number of distractions in our lives today, entertainment and otherwise that pull our focus from a constant pursuit of musical excellence. From television and video games, to books, social media, and outdoor activities, there is more to do today than ever before. And in my estimation, the greats that we recognize today, probably didn't have the most balanced of lives. They lived for their art and had many more opportunities to immerse themselves in it for many hours a day than composers today do (again, save for those with academic appointments, film composers, etc.)
Sorry for rambling, but I felt the need to at least play devil's advocate. The funny thing is, generally speaking, I agree that very few living composers today are achieving at the same level as those composers of previous centuries...but I don't believe it's for lack of ability, as much as for lack of opportunity to develop those skills to a higher degree than they currently do.
Dave