William, I seek to model my approach after J.S. Bach, particularly his attitude (humility).  No one comes close to his output.  I cannot even begin to fathom having to write a full - roughly 20 minute - cantata every week.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to me that he too, was considered outdated and terribly old fashioned by his own kids (J.C.; W.F,; C.P.E.) and was completely consigned to the dusty bins of history until Mendelssohn rediscovered him.  In a way that is also encouraging.  However much one generation may disregard a composer or a valuable form of music, it is at least possible that someone of a future generation may come to recognize what is of real worth.  I guess one key will be to leave things that can be either discovered, or rediscovered.

 Well, to get off the Dimension Strings thread for a while, and take a break from anxiously monitoring the download, I haven't seen the new Batman.   That is disturbing - so it is Zimmer again? 

Now just think about this - the first Batman film.  Danny Elfman doing a score that was influenced by Herrmann at times AN D very good. I remember the end scene, with the camera (very well directed by Tim Burton and photographed by his excellent cinematographer not to mention envisioned by the genius production designer Anton Furst who died shortly later) tilting and panning slowly to the top of the fabulously film noirish cityscape where Batman stands darkly triumphant in the night and the music crescendos with the same motif it started with going down into darkness at the beginning in a minor key, but now in a major key.  It was so far above the pop origin of the material that it was absolutely brilliant image and music, totally in harmony, combined into one.  I completely admire that score and many scenes of the film.  It had such design and visual ideas as well as music.   But what is it now?  Why did they get rid of a great film composer like Elfman?    I guess because they were "re-imagining" the story and of course, the music. 

@Another User said:

...J.S. Bach creating something that had no timbre, no scored instrument,  absolutely nothing but some little scratched notes on a fragile piece of paper but was pure, great musical ideas.  And now, centuries later, people all over this planet are playing what he did.   He didn't need all the digital, electronic, advanced, latest, state-of-the-art, gigashit crutches of today.

All he needed was a pen, a piece of paper, and his mind. 

Whether you can accept this or not, an instrument is technology. Instrumental advancements such as Well-temperament, which happened hand-in-hand with eg., JS Bach's idea of harmony, are per se evolutions of technology. The inventions of instruments, the development of the orchestra over the centuries is all about NOVELTY OF TIMBRE. Wagner's orchestra... He wanted [new! LOUDER] instruments to suit his conception. The use of electricity to amplify, to record... Les Paul... Hendrix and feedback. Electronic Music. Stockhausen was mentioned. If we are to be consistent with your premise - and it sure looks like you're begging the question having profferred an argument out of it - these are all fluff and will have gone down the crapper.

@Errikos said:

Youngsters must realize that EVERY SINGLE PITCH OR FILTER TWEAK by either camp is either crass, old news, embarassingly rudimentary, or a combination thereof. There is only a single way for youngsters to realize this for sure, and that is only through familiarity with 20th century music history and its repertoire.

But it's necessary to tell kids that every move that's possible owing to A TECHNIQUE isn't worth doing? You're unhinged. EVERY SINGLE USE OF (a_technique)!!!!  I am in total agreement with the POV here, but these wild absolutist assertions are incredibly funny.

It is exactly the same as telling someone 'IF YOU USE A MAJOR SCALE surely you should know that the grownups are embarrassed for you. IT'S BEEN DONE!!!!'

Yes! REALLY!! Somehow, you put it right! "Surely the EDM infants that think what they do IS electronic music are clueless about the history and as such believe the supersaw is really amazing" (Please don't use abbreviations next time that I have to look up - these nomenclatures are too genre specific)

While you felt like being self-important and sarcastic, you actually were factual instead! Yeah, the EDM infants are clueless IF they think the supersaw is anything to write home about... Now I'm not saying that everybody that is involved with EDM is necessarily ignorant (EDM might just be their genre of preference for their personal expression), but those who are not ignorant, would very much know their position in the Electronic Music pyramid - much as every aware orchestral composer knows his own in the symphonic pyramid. However, you certainly don't know it (as the last paragraph of your post shows), and neither do the "supersaw" geniuses (if they thought they were being innovative that time), who are more akin to modern day Cro-Magnons rubbing sticks together and crying "Fire! We made fire!!" inside an ultra-modern, blindingly fluorescent-lit laboratory...

OF COURSE you should tell someone 'IF YOU USE A MAJOR SCALE surely you should know that the grownups are embarrassed for you. IT'S BEEN DONE!!!!' IF that someone thinks they are being innovative, posting around YouTube and VSL blathering "Check out MY NEW piece" and it is just a major scale run... Somebody has to snap them out of embarrassing themselves through exorbitant ignorance, don't you think? It is the only friendly thing to do so they can grow artistically IF they have it in them, and rid the rest of us of additional noise pollution. These are the unfortunate results of ignorance. Same if I blithely posted my "new" technique of 'Errikos' Bass', and it was actually the same as the 'Alberti Bass'. If you don't know the latter however (and how can't you unless you are completely ignorant...), you might find it impressive...

And by the way, I didn't say the use of a major scale should be discouraged, any more than any specific technique. BUT! When that technique IS the main feature of a work (and every work after that) - like Hans' spewccati for instance, AND it is not original in any way, then yes, it should be pointed out and threateningly discouraged.

I did say in another thread, there is nothing wrong about being simplistic when you start out (what else could you be?), but this "supersaw" mirth is just too-too much coming supposedly from the cutting edge (pun not intended but welcome) of the industry...

civilization3

I don't actually disagree with some of what you're saying.  But this set me off ---  

"I'm merely recognizing that the keen arrangement of notes-on-paper is no longer the only means to musical immortality. We now have music that exists as a recorded (and digitally-sculpted) performance..."

This states an equivalence between manipulating timbre and composing music.  That is very questionable especially looking at 1) what has lasted through the centuries and 2) the huge ocean of noise that floods all around the world today with an infinite variety of timbres.  One can create a composition purely out of timbral changes, and it has been done seriously.  But in general the excessive concentration on timbre alone is shallow.  This happens today of course with film scores.  A three line sketch is handed over to an orchestrator and a huge symphony orchestra is smeared all over the most vapid little beginning-harmony exercise. 

On the other hand, it is ironic that in the past, even great composers were sometimes accused of having no musical content, and disguising the fact with pretty orchestration.  An example of that was people ridiculing Mahler for his complex orchestration.  They were wrong of course.  But the same kind of critics (back earlier in the days of the Pro-Wagner, Anti-Brahms conflict) thought Brahms was better and his orchestration was very spare and austere.  So no complexity or tone-painting with orchestration was associated with profoundity.  That of course was also wrong, and not why his music is so great. It is the actual musical ideas in it.  And the orchestration he did expressed it.  I remember Edgar Varese pointing out that Brahms did, contrary to the usual accepted dogma, very good orchestration, because the instrumental expression was exactly suited to the ideas.

On the Bach comment I brought that up simply because it is the classic example of pure musical thought, divorced from the "clothing" of orchestration or intrumentation.  (Though yes, Bach was a great improviser on the organ.)  And that without all the technological crutches that we have today it is played all over the world.   The pure musical ideas are so strong that they have lasted through centuries of time without all the advanced technological support system that film score composers today depend upon. 

I believe in what, very simply, René Leibowitz wrote on his (and Jan Maguire's) "Thinking for Orchestra": I have to translate, but more or less it sounds like this:

"Music theory is necessarily determined by the past, real composer is esteemed by his contribution to the future".

The "negation" (absence, lack, but I like best negation) of present age (or up-to-date) music is determined by the present-day (film or not) "composer".

Behind this modern subject ( the composer) there's an entire industry of men and women, filmakers, sound engineers, samples creators, producers, executive producers, mtv stuff, recording engineers, personnel managers and the list goes on, you name it...

All of them conspire against music. All they want is to make money, even with cinematic idiocies. So, a name like the usual Doltish (de)composer, gathers ranks of as much doltish and illiterate movie goers.

So, what once could be a sound and healthy aesthetic sense, to-day is corrupted by a global paramount stupidity.

T. W. Adorno, knew it all. Einleitung in die Musiksoziologie..., 1962.

William, I found your comment about Bach interesting.

At the time of his death, Bach's sons already viewed "dad" as being passe.  All those glorious notes were silent.  It was not until Mendelssohn rediscovered J.S., that his music again took flight, and eventually became heard around the world.

As for creating music by manipulating timbre, if one is not careful, one can accidently throw out the entire world of jazz, a musical form that makes much of timbre.  Granted, to be a fine jazz musician requires far more musical knowledge than simply being able to turn dials and knobs (Note: it is also interesting that Wendy Carlos started turning dials and knobs creating timbres to use with the music of J.S. Bach).  The point is simply that - though stating the obvious - significan musical forms exist that emphasize something other than paper and pencil.

IMO, it takes considerably more musical knowledge to create tonal compositions that say something than to write atonal whatever.  With the atonal music harmony and counterpoint do not have to "work".  During my college days, I learned far more about atonal concepts (even though not studying composition), than I would ever end up using, or wanting to use.  For my interests, one of the subjects I really wanted to learn about was 18th century counterpoint.  I took the class, but the professor spent most of his time - when he was there and the class actually met - talking about 20th century atonal and electronic techniques.  I went in knowing nothing about 18th century counterpoint, and came out knowing nothing about 18th century counterpoint.  Since it was a passe, "old" technique, that type of counterpoint simply wasn't necessary.  I could write all the atonal stuff you'd never want to hear, but a fugue that actually worked, and worked well... no.

To me, it takes far more technique to write traditional tonal music that says something (thereby generally excluding a certain film "composer" and his legion of clones) than the atonal forms.  I do wonder how many composers had educational experiences similar to mine - where they simply were not taught the basics of traditional technique (self-study then becoming the option).  One wonders how much of what is going on today relates not so much to lack of ability, but to basic ignorance.  Throw in the demands of the culture, directors, et al, and the situation is far worse.  But, if composers no longer have the writing skills, chaning the situation will be even harder.

 noldar, you're right about jazz, also blues. I was thinking about that, being a favorite of mine, and how many of the greats couldn't really even be written down. Like Robert Johnson whose rhythms can't really be notated.   And that is "composing" just as much as pen and ink.

That's interesting about the lack of earlier music studies in modern academia.  I'm not sure what to make of it. 

William, my experience may have been a "one off" sort of thing (at least I hope so).  At the time I took the class, the department had the new music professor teaching the 18th century counterpoint class.  In hindsight, that was probably not a very wise selection.  The class literally only met for about 1/2 the sessions it was supposed to have, as the teacher had many outside activities, and at that time was getting somewhat known in the electronica field.  The department was revamped a few years later after I graduated, so things may have been straightened out (I chose that particular school as they had a good double-bass professor, something many other schools did not have).

For obvious reasons, I prefer not to post either the school name, or the name of the professor (it is always possible that some might recognize his name).  I should add that as a person, he was a cool guy, just not for 18th century counterpoint.

Overall, I was very glad to have been a music major at that school, and most of my experiences were positive, the one mentioned above was one of a couple exceptions.  Considering how naive I was at the time - I decided to become a music major after taking a music theory course in high school as a junior (the one year it was offered), and didn't start playing what became my major instrument until my senior year (double-bass), the fact that the school even let me pursue the major (though on probation to start), and that things ended up going as well as they did, is something I have always been thankful for.  It was a good thing that I didn't know things just were not done the way I ended up doing them.