"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.