# "All Time Greats"



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think this concept is an illusion. There are only the works/composers we enjoy and the ones we dislike. I think it also makes us think we should enjoy something b/c the experts say it is objectively good, when in fact you subjectively dislike it.

When humans are no more, what difference will it make anyways what history has deemed to be the greats?

Perhaps the new dominant species, if there is one, will enjoy our Art, but do we really do anything but study what the dinosaurs did?

Thoughts?


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

Exactly right. I'm every bit as talented and polished a composer as Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, or Stravinsky. The experts must be held accountable for their subjective suppression.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Do you feel put down by "experts" telling you what to like? What if the recommenders are not experts but are just a big number of experienced listeners? And if that is a short-cut to some pretty great experiences - even if some are just not for you - isn't that a good thing? No-one can make you like something that you don't like so if you follow a recommendation you will still have the last word.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DBLee said:


> Exactly right. I'm every bit as talented and polished a composer as Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, or Stravinsky. The experts must be held accountable for their subjective suppression.


We can break apart the music and say, Mozart was an expert in Sonata form, Bach was good at counterpoint and perhaps we will value those aspects of the music and that is what makes us enjoy it.

It's all about breaking it down into the music's component parts and stating what each composer excelled at.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I essentially agree with you on the original post, but find that lists of "greats" are helpful to someone who doesn't know where to begin looking.

If I went to a large city, I'd never been to, I'd look for restaurant recommendations. I view it similarly.

Having said that, I think some pieces seldom get their chance to shine because of these lists and also, that some pieces get over-exposed.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Do you feel put down by "experts" telling you what to like? What if the recommenders are not experts but are just a big number of experienced listeners? And if that is a short-cut to some pretty great experiences - even if some are just not for you - isn't that a good thing? No-one can make you like something that you don't like so if you follow a recommendation you will still have the last word.


Of course, I'm just talking about people that speak in absolutes of "this composer is one of the greats" vs. "try this work by Mozart, you might enjoy it based on what you are looking for."


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

20centrfuge said:


> I essentially agree with you on the original post, but find that lists of "greats" are helpful to someone who doesn't know where to begin looking.
> 
> If I went to a large city, I'd never been to, I'd look for restaurant recommendations. I view it similarly.
> 
> Having said that, I think some pieces seldom get their chance to shine because of these lists and also, that some pieces get over-exposed.


Definitely, suggestions from sources you like are always welcomed.


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's all about breaking it down into the music's component parts and stating what each composer excelled at.


And that is something we can do in a *largely* objective way, correct?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DBLee said:


> And that is something we can do in a *largely* objective way, correct?


Yes, but that doesn't make it objectively better music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Of course, I'm just talking about people that speak in absolutes of "this composer is one of the greats" vs. "try this work by Mozart, you might enjoy it based on what you are looking for."


But part of the subjective experience with some music is a sort of certainty - it is great; it is rubbish - that is hard to suppress!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I've been listening to classical music for about 35 years now. When I started (before internet and easily accessible information), all I had to guide me into this new area were some general books, some magazines, and radio programs. Of course, I relied heavily on others' opinions to decide what to explore. Which was fine for the first few years, but after that it became clear that what the experts declared to be the best composers and works, was not always in line with my own experience, and sometimes completely opposite, even after many tries to "get" some of the so-called greatest composers and compositions. And of course there's no reason why it should be.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> But part of the subjective experience with some music is a sort of certainty - it is great; it is rubbish - that is hard to suppress!


That's true, it's just important to remember what is an opinion and what is a fact.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

20centrfuge said:


> I essentially agree with you on the original post, but find that lists of "greats" are helpful to someone who doesn't know where to begin looking.
> 
> If I went to a large city, I'd never been to, I'd look for restaurant recommendations. I view it similarly.
> 
> Having said that, I think some pieces seldom get their chance to shine because of these lists and also, that some pieces get over-exposed.


It's been too long ago to remember what we were taught in school concerning classical music. I'm guessing it was the bare minimum. But when I was a kid I never read any books or magazine articles on classical music and the great composers. But somehow I knew all their names. And I don't come from a musical family. It just seemed like it was in the public consciousness. Do people have to be told by experts who to listen to? I don't know how much has changed but back then the great composers were household names. Just like the great jazz musicians. Everybody knew Duke, Basie, Satchmo, Ella, etc.


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Yes, but that doesn't make it objectively better music.


How can you use such terms as "excelled" if there is nothing objective to consider?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DBLee said:


> How can you use such terms as "excelled" if there is nothing objective to consider?


There are objective things to consider, but taste is subjective but is still based on objective criteria. For example, someone can really appreciate the Sonata form of Mozart's 40th Symphony and that is the criteria that they appreciate.

The point is, there isn't one set of objective criteria that makes you an all time great composer, it just makes you an expert in that particular set of criteria and what a listener likes depends on what criteria they are looking for.


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> There are objective things to consider, but taste is subjective but is still based on objective criteria.


I agree. But this would make musical greatness more than a mere "illusion," even acknowledging the presence of subjectivity in such evaluations.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DBLee said:


> I agree. But this would make musical greatness more than a mere "illusion," even acknowledging the presence of subjectivity in such evaluations.


It's an illusion because there is no such thing as objective musical greatness. Because the criteria we prefer in our evaluations, which can be conscious or subconscious, is subjective, it makes any statement of objective musical greatness null.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's an illusion because there is no such thing as objective musical greatness. Because the criteria we prefer in our evaluations, which can be conscious or subconscious, is subjective, it makes any statement of objective musical greatness null.


You've been indulging too much in the democratic way of thinking.

Established hierarchies of composers help young musicians discover good music early, they are absolutely essential, without them we are lost. It would take a century of searching for a person to find all the great composers had we an 'equality' view to history; this is simply not how things are; there is a wide gap of talent between the best and the average.

Yes, today it is fashionable to view everything as equal, but don't get drunk on it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That's true, it's just important to remember what is an opinion and what is a fact.


In one of your own previous threads, "Chopin vs Mozart in keyboard works", I was a little ticked off by Eva Yojimbo's distortion of facts (He tried to argue Chopin has a greater command of texture over Mozart). Deep down I'm actually tolerant and respectful of other people's preferences and opinions, but there are always people on youtube and places like that (mostly piano-lovers) trying to distort facts. Quite a number of them don't just say "I like Chopin better because of his Romanticism" but go further to discuss (often incorrectly) at great lengths how much Mozart objectively lacks compared to Chopin. I've noticed on many occasions Liszt is also underappreciated by them in this way. Chopin is also a great composer deserving every respect, but the way they go about praising him is just cringey and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's an illusion because there is no such thing as objective musical greatness. Because the criteria we prefer in our evaluations, which can be conscious or subconscious, is subjective, it makes any statement of objective musical greatness null.


No. You've said this a number of times previously. In many walks of life, in many vocations, some people do things better than other people, some people achieve greatness while others don't. And yet, when it comes to classical music composers, it is supposed to be different: a Beethoven is the same as Englebert Humperdinck because any comparison is all subjective.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> No. You've said this a number of times previously. In many walks of life, in many vocations, some people do things better than other people, some people achieve greatness while others don't. And yet, when it comes to classical music composers, it is supposed to be different: a Beethoven is the same as Englebert Humperdinck because any comparison is all subjective.


I do apologise for saying similar things in slightly different ways. But it's something I feel strongly about! I like praising individual/unique talents in all vocations instead of stating an ultimate winner of who is the best whereas you like to declare that winner. (I think that's what you are saying).

And I'm also not against competitions and declaring a winner of that match either.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

A football team may not do well in the regular season and not make the playoffs, however, their quarterback/wide end receiver combo might be excellent, but the defense might just be awful. Objectively, that team is losing games but it might be a person's favorite team b/c they value that quarterback/receiver combo.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I do apologise for saying similar things in slightly different ways. But it's something I feel strongly about! I'm not going to try to convince you, b/c that statement you quoted makes my stance pretty clear, I like praising individual/unique talents in all vocations instead of stating an ultimate winner of who is the best whereas you like to declare that winner. (I think that's what you are saying).
> 
> And I'm also not against competitions and declaring a winner of that match either.


Then apparently, you do support declaring a winner. You can't have it both ways.

Still, to equate the premise that since classical music composition is a skill and thus some are more skilled than others as comparable with declaring a winner is specious. Bach, Beethoven and Brahms didn't win anything; their work spoke for itself.

Also, when you praise the 'individual/unique talents' of individuals in vocations, you are making an assessment/assumption that they have 'talents' to begin with which means that there are parameters as to what constitutes 'talents'. Some people have no talent, some have some talent, some have a lot of talent, all based on the product of that talent. It's a fact of life.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Then apparently, you do support declaring a winner. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Still, to equate the premise that since classical music composition is a skill and thus some are more skilled than others as comparable with declaring a winner is specious. Bach, Beethoven and Brahms didn't win anything; their work spoke for itself.
> 
> Also, when you praise the 'individual/unique talents' of individuals in vocations, you are making an assessment/assumption that they have 'talents' to begin with which means that there are parameters as to what constitutes 'talents'. Some people have no talent, some have some talent, some have a lot of talent, all based on the product of that talent. It's a fact of life.


You can win a match based on certain criteria, such as the ability to sight read the same work over many competitors. A winner of this match can be obtained because the score is objective and we have judges that know the work well enough to be able to pick a winner.

But you can't pick a winner as to who the best player is in terms of enjoyment b/c that is a personal value judgement.

Art is personal.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You can win a match based on certain criteria, such as the ability to sight read the same work over many competitors. A winner of this match can be obtained because the score is objective and we have judges that know the work well enough to be able to pick a winner.
> 
> But you can't pick a winner as to who the best player is in terms of enjoyment b/c that is a personal value judgement.
> 
> Art is personal.


Any judge will tell you that the player who wins competitions is more likely to be enjoyed than those who lose competitions. An important part of skill in the arts entails understanding what parameters bring about enjoyment and being able to create works that meet those parameters. For instance, a parameter of enjoyment in classical music has been melody. It takes skill to create and develop a melody that attracts a lot of people, that fills the seats in a concert hall and that sells recordings. There's a history of success behind the music of those who compose music greater than others.

Btw, funny thing about 'subjectivity': When far more people subjectively like the works of a given composer over another, they, by an objective measure, tend to fill more seats to listen to the music of that composer.  In the end, artists, to distinguish themselves from an amateur category, have to appeal to a legitimate audience. The amateur can claim it is all subjectivity, but will do so with, largely, an audience of friends and family.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Any judge will tell you that the player who wins competitions is more likely to be enjoyed than those who lose competitions. An important part of skill in the arts entails understanding what parameters bring about enjoyment and being able to create works that meet those parameters. For instance, a parameter of enjoyment in classical music has been melody. It takes skill to create and develop a melody that attracts a lot of people, that fills the seats in a concert hall and that sells recordings. There's a history of success behind the music of those who compose music greater than others.
> 
> Btw, funny thing about 'subjectivity': When far more people subjectively like the works of a given composer over another, they, by an objective measure, tend to fill more seats to listen to the music of that composer.  In the end, artists, to distinguish themselves from an amateur category, have to appeal to a legitimate audience. The amateur can claim it is all subjectivity, but will do so with, largely, an audience of friends and family.


By that logic, pop music is the greatest current genre in that it appeals to the most amount of ppl and sells the most tickets. Appealing to the lowest common denominator doesn't make it better, it just makes it more accessible.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

DBLee said:


> Exactly right. I'm every bit as talented and polished a composer as Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, or Stravinsky. The experts must be held accountable for their subjective suppression.


I might have been just as talented in music, if I had ever learned music theory and to play piano, but...

So, given that talent is from God, the individual is just a vessel to pour it fourth. Therefore I propose that all musical compositions be numbered consecutively so that each number is unique to a single piece. There can only be one Ninth symphony, and it won't be Beethoven, but someone earlier, perhaps Haydn or Mozart. That way we can keep from naming the composer (vessel) and simply refer to the actual musical work, which anyone could have developed given certain circumstances.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I might have been just as talented in music, if I had ever learned music theory and to play piano, but...
> 
> So, given that talent is from God, the individual is just a vessel to pour it fourth. Therefore I propose that all musical compositions be numbered consecutively so that each number is unique to a single piece. There can only be one Ninth symphony, and it won't be Beethoven, but someone earlier, perhaps Haydn or Mozart. That way we can keep from naming the composer (vessel) and simply refer to the actual musical work, which anyone could have developed given certain circumstances.


You are missing what I'm saying completely if you think I'm proposing anyone could do what Mozart or others did/do.


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You are missing what I'm saying completely if you think I'm proposing anyone could do what Mozart or others did/do.


Hmmm...might it have required *greatness*?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DBLee said:


> Hmmm...might it have required *greatness*?


It required their unique personalities and life experiences.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You are missing what I'm saying completely if you think I'm proposing anyone could do what Mozart or others did/do.


I meant it tongue-in-cheek, which we don't seem to have an emoticon for, but this seemed close:


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

On one hand, tastes are subjective, but on the other hand it's very difficult to deny some composer's accomplishments and/or skill over others. This dilemma is kind of similar to the question of whether or not the supernatural is real, a right answer exists but no one can know it objectively. So by that logic I think a certain hierarchy of compositional skill exists, but no one can have objective claim to what it is exactly.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> By that logic, pop music is the greatest current genre in that it appeals to the most amount of ppl and sells the most tickets. Appealing to the lowest common denominator doesn't make it better, it just makes it more accessible.


What does the skillset of a classical composer and the ability of a composer to create music that fills more seats than another have anything to do with popular music. Different genres, different skillsets, different audiences and different times.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

DaveM said:


> No. You've said this a number of times previously. In many walks of life, in many vocations, some people do things better than other people, some people achieve greatness while others don't. And yet, when it comes to classical music composers, it is supposed to be different: a Beethoven is the same as Englebert Humperdinck because any comparison is all subjective.


Without resorting to the fallacious argumentum ad populum, can you prove that composer 'A' is objectively better than the rest?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

violadude said:


> On one hand, tastes are subjective, but on the other hand it's very difficult to deny some composer's accomplishments and/or skill over others. This dilemma is kind of similar to the question of whether or not the supernatural is real, a right answer exists but no one can know it objectively. So by that logic I think a certain hierarchy of compositional skill exists, but no one can have objective claim to what it is exactly.


A hierarchy of the most skilled can be assessed in formative years of course. There are standard candles of technique with which to gauge competence. These are techniques in the basic elements of music and if one can show knowledge of technique and good facility in execution via solutions to problems and exercises, then objectively speaking, it's possible to come up with a view as to the level of skill the composer has, at least in a comparative way to practices established by the canon.

I'd say it's impossible to assess objectively composers who have reached maturity because by that very definition musically speaking, they are presenting what they want us to hear - they have made their choices.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

janxharris said:


> Without resorting to the fallacious argumentum ad populum, can you prove that composer 'A' is objectively better than the rest?


Have answered that several times in other threads. Sorry you apparently missed it. Btw, can you prove that objective parameters are irrelevant in comparing composers?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

DaveM said:


> Have answered that several times in other threads. Sorry you apparently missed it.


Perhaps you could provide a link?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

DaveM said:


> ...Btw, can you prove that objective parameters are irrelevant in comparing composers?


I'm unaware of any such parameters that aren't some kind of argumentum ad populum.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

janxharris said:


> I'm unaware of any such parameters that aren't some kind of argumentum ad populum.


Condemnant quo non intellegunt.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

DaveM said:


> Condemnant quo non intellegunt.


Understand what DaveM?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> A hierarchy of the most skilled can be assessed in formative years of course. There are standard candles of technique with which to gauge competence. These are techniques in the basic elements of music and if one can show knowledge of technique and good facility in execution via solutions to problems and exercises, then objectively speaking, it's possible to come up with a view as to the level of skill the composer has, at least in a comparative way to practices established by the canon.
> 
> *I'd say it's impossible to assess objectively composers who have reached maturity because by that very definition musically speaking, they are presenting what they want us to hear - they have made their choices.*


What's the objective of what he's writing; how grand is that objective; how tastefully is that objective accomplished.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> A hierarchy of the most skilled can be assessed in formative years of course. There are standard candles of technique with which to gauge competence. These are techniques in the basic elements of music and if one can show knowledge of technique and good facility in execution via solutions to problems and exercises, then objectively speaking, it's possible to come up with a view as to the level of skill the composer has, at least in a comparative way to practices established by the canon.
> 
> I'd say it's impossible to assess objectively composers who have reached maturity because by that very definition musically speaking, they are presenting what they want us to hear - they have made their choices.


Chopin (AFAIK) never wrote a canon or a fugue with more than two voices, and yet he's a far greater contrapuntalist (and, of course, a far greater composer) than the vast majority of composers who have.

I'd also question the assertion of your second paragraph. How would you define "reached maturity", and how many composers would you say have done so? 5? 50? Hundreds or thousands? Would you include yourself in this group (by the way, I've enjoyed what I've heard of yours so far; keep up the good work  )? You make it seem as if you think a composer gets to in some sense decide when he/she is at a level where he/she cannot be "objectively assessed", which is a rather absurd notion IMO.

As to the OP, I would make a distinction between my (or others') preferences and greatness (the two do not always align). In terms of greatness, I think there are "tiers": first-rate, second-rate, and so on. My notion of "greatness" is not based on influence or popular perception. I'm willing to admit, though, that some of its basis might be subjective, and I see nothing wrong with that.

That said, I do get rather annoyed with how often musical discussion, criticism, and literature, even at an academic level, is nothing more than egotistical and opinionated bloviation trying to elevate the author's personal tastes and biases to "objective" status, often without any real evidence to support the ridiculous claims being made. I guess the field is inherently prone to such nonsense, but still...


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

1996D.....What's the objective of what he's writing; how grand is that objective; how tastefully is that objective accomplished.

My emphasis was essentially on _verifiable skills _, which can be a reasonable objective indicator. One can surmise pretty quickly if a score has been written by someone with or without training and a sensible judgement can be inferred on that level only.
Your criteria above for assessing also allows for subjective conclusions to cloud the issue imv. Mature work will obviously be a culmination of study, musicality and especially experience. It will be personal, it may or may not show particular techniques and need not be answerable to any others opinion anyway - it is the ultimate subjectivity and who is anyone to judge that in terms of skillsets alone? You either like it or you don't and it is best left at that imv.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> *I'd also question the assertion of your second paragraph. How would you define "reached maturity", and how many composers would you say have done so? 5? 50? Hundreds or thousands? Would you include yourself in this group (by the way, I've enjoyed what I've heard of yours so far; keep up the good work  )? You make it seem as if you think a composer gets to in some sense decide when he/she is at a level where he/she cannot be "objectively assessed", which is a rather absurd notion IMO.*
> 
> As to the OP, I would make a distinction between my (or others') preferences and greatness (the two do not always align). In terms of greatness, I think there are "tiers": first-rate, second-rate, and so on. My notion of "greatness" is not based on influence or popular perception. I'm willing to admit, though, that some of its basis might be subjective, and I see nothing wrong with that.
> 
> That said, I do get rather annoyed with how often musical discussion, criticism, and literature, even at an academic level, is nothing more than egotistical and opinionated bloviation trying to elevate the author's personal tastes and biases to "objective" status, often without any real evidence to support the ridiculous claims being made. I guess the field is inherently prone to such nonsense, but still...


Thanks BrahmsWasA... most appreciated. You must link some of your work.

No, I didn't intentionally mean to imply that the composer gets to choose at what point he/she is beyond objective assessment. It is fair to say though that a composer will realise at some point that they know even more so than earlier, what they want to say, are fluent and cohesive in what they say and able to do it without technical restriction and in a successful way - ideally their ability will tally with their aesthetics and allow them to push even further if they wish. I accept that one can only infer maturity in another composer, but surely the evidence for a mature work over an early work can be discerned easily enough on some levels. As for me, I've learnt a great deal about myself in my studies and pro life and would consider myself able to write whatever I feel and be able to do it well....well you did ask..

I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph and was attempting to inject a reasonable and cautious, perhaps even slightly flawed methodology that might offer a solution and be a little more than just opinion.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> 1996D.....What's the objective of what he's writing; how grand is that objective; how tastefully is that objective accomplished.
> 
> My emphasis was essentially on _verifiable skills _, which can be a reasonable objective indicator. One can surmise pretty quickly if a score has been written by someone with or without training and a sensible judgement can be inferred on that level only.
> Your criteria above for assessing also allows for subjective conclusions to cloud the issue imv. Mature work will obviously be a culmination of study, musicality and especially experience. It will be personal, it may or may not show particular techniques and need not be answerable to any others opinion anyway - it is the ultimate subjectivity and who is anyone to judge that in terms of skillsets alone? You either like it or you don't and it is best left at that imv.


My point is the importance of the artistic objective of the piece. Most Hollywood composers are technically sound but they will never write something great while chasing money writing for blockbuster movies.

Maybe they never had the potential, who knows, but technique is really something basic that's a given for any serious composer, which you can then improve on yes, but it has its limits. The artistry is what determines the quality of a piece; technique is a means to an end.

It's funny that I'm saying this since technique has been an obsession for some time now, but once you reach it then the focus changes to the pacing, the mood, the story, the message - the ultimate artistic goal.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

1996D said:


> My point is the importance of the artistic objective of the piece. Most Hollywood composers are technically sound but they will never write something great while chasing money writing for blockbuster movies.
> 
> Maybe they never had the potential, who knows, but technique is really something basic that's a given for any serious composer, which you can then improve on yes, but it has its limits. The artistry is what determines the quality of a piece; technique is a means to an end.
> 
> It's funny that I'm saying this since technique has been an obsession for some time now, but once you reach it then the focus changes to the pacing, the mood, the story, the message - the ultimate artistic goal.


I'd say technique and artistry are symbiotic. I know of some composers below the highest tiers who fail to understand the creative synergy between the two, the rub between the search and the find imv. I do particularly see a lot of this with DAW composers, but then again, they have no intention of creating art music and the principles we are talking about are not particularly relevant to them anyway.
This failure to grasp the critical role of skill in creativity may be down to a lack of training or a basic misunderstanding of the application of technique in the initial stages of composing, let alone every moment from then on. A composer could choose to not apply technical means and create a stream of consciousness type piece but even that approach needs discipline of some sort (practical considerations), if communication is the desired effect. Lose focus on the foundations of what you are trying to achieve and your edifice will falter.

I agree with you that technique is a means to an end but it should never discarded at any point. Again I might add that this is a personal view and YMMV as a composer.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> I'd say technique and artistry are symbiotic. A lot of composers below the highest tiers fail to understand the creative synergy between the two, the rub between the search and the find imv. I do particularly see a lot of this with DAW composers, but then again, they have no intention of creating art music and the principles we are talking about are not particularly relevant to them anyway.
> This failure to grasp the critical role of skill in creativity may be down to a lack of training or a basic misunderstanding of the application of technique in the initial stages of composing, let alone every moment from then on. Lose focus on the foundations of what you are trying to achieve and your edifice will falter. Again I might add that this is a personal view and YMMV as a composer.


Of course they are, in my view with a great message comes inevitably great technique because the delivery of the former demands it--it extracts out of the composer every single resource and if it's not readily there it brings it out of him--he does whatever he must to acquire it--because the greatness of the idea demands it: at its core this is what art is. As Debussy said "Works of art make rules; rules do not make works of art."

Yet on the other hand you can have technique and no artistry. Across all art forms there are examples of this, one I like is the Chinese violin players with excellent technique yet seemingly soulless performances, with no storyline whatsoever to their performance. They are trained but aren't artists.

This is a really interesting subject, maybe it's down to potential and talent and there is nothing that can be done about it.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

What’s a DAW composer? What’s YMMV? What’s with all these acronyms?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

violadude said:


> What's a DAW composer? What's YMMV? What's with all these acronyms?


Digital audio workstation.

Your mileage may vary


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

It comes down to creative talent vs application of past discoveries. The creative artist innovates, has powerful ideas, excels at his own game; while the uncreative student relies on past innovations and focuses solely on following these rules.

Only one is an artist, although the accomplishments of the past do serve as a measuring scale and as motivation to surpass them.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

1996D said:


> Yet on the other hand you can have technique and no artistry. Across all art forms there are examples of this, one I like is the Chinese violin players with excellent technique yet seemingly soulless performances, with no storyline whatsoever to their performance. They are trained but aren't artists.


I don't think of performers as "creative artists" in the sense I do for composers. They're more like actors who follow scripts written by someone else. We don't call actors "artists", right? So why call "players" and "singers" in classical music "artists"? Some performers like Wim Winters and Glenn Gould think it's ok to disregard the composers' original intentions and do whatever fk they want with the compositions. And by doing so they think they're true artists. I think it's ridiculous. They're just "performing clowns" in my view.










[ Mozart almost certainly intended andante maestoso to be slower than his normal andante. ]
https://books.google.ca/books?id=dHxOUcHeTcwC&pg=PA364
[ "I've intentionally written Andante maestoso [4/4] over it, so that one won't play it quickly" ]
https://books.google.ca/books?id=c6GMDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA46


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think of performers as "creative artists" in the sense composers are. They're more like actors who follow scripts written by someone else. We don't call actors "artists", right? So why call "players" and "singers" in classical music "artists"? Some performers like Wim Winters and Glenn Gould think it's ok to disregard the composers' original intentions and do whatever fk they want with the compositions. And by doing so they think they're true artists. I think it's ridiculous. They're just _"performing clowns"_ in my view.


Exactly, but this what some composers are as well, they are actors following the scripts they learned in school, they show no creativity.

While some performers like Horowitz do add a strong sense of storyline to a piece that might already be there, but has to be seen and empathized with, and in the process the performer becomes creator because of the elements of improvisation and pure emotion that the music demands. There is some room for creativity for the performer, although I'm also big on staying loyal to the composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

1996D said:


> Exactly, but this what some composers are as well, they are actors following the scripts they learned in school, they show no creativity.
> While some performers like Horowitz do add a strong sense of storyline to a piece that might already be there, but has to be seen and empathized with, and in the process the performer becomes creator because of the elements of improvisation and pure emotion that the music demands. There is some room for creativity for the performer, although I'm also big on staying loyal to the composer.


Yes, I like Pieter Jan Belder's performance of Bach, including his free improvisation on the introductory chords in BWV944. There are lots of performers out there today that are better the "egotistical trolls".


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Glenn Gould a performing clown? What are the two of you smoking?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Glenn Gould a performing clown? What are the two of you smoking?


Let's be honest, classical music performers are mostly "biological machines" playing stuff already written on score. It is my view that performers should be "obedient servants" to composers, in playing the composers' music. If they're not, they're just "trolls". I think the only difference between Glenn Gould and Wim Winters (AuthenticSound) is that Gould is way more popular. Wim Winters also made a lot of controversy with his poorly-justified fking-up of composers' tempo (just like GG), but he has his own dedicated fan-base (albeit much smaller than GG's). If one considers WW a "performing clown", then so is GG.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> Let's be honest, classical music performers are mostly "biological machines" playing stuff already written on score. It is my view that performers should be "obedient servants" to composers, in playing the composers' music. If they're not, they're just "trolls". I think the only difference between Glenn Gould and Wim Winters (AuthenticSound) is that Gould is way more popular. Wim Winters also made a lot of controversy with his poorly-justified fking-up of composers' tempo (just like GG), but he has his own dedicated fan-base (albeit much smaller than GG's). If one considers WW a "performing clown", then so is GG.


What about cases in which the score has minimal direction, as is the case with most pre-romantic era scores? What about issues that the composer doesn't address in the score, such as balance between the instruments, bow speed, phrasing issues that aren't fully satisfied by a legato marking? There is so much about the music that the score doesn't say and so this steamy hot take of yours just seems woefully uninformed.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> Let's be honest, classical music performers are mostly "biological machines" playing stuff already written on score. It is my view that performers should be "obedient servants" to composers, in playing the composers' music. If they're not, they're just "trolls". I think the only difference between Glenn Gould and Wim Winters (AuthenticSound) is that Gould is way more popular. Wim Winters also made a lot of controversy with his poorly-justified fking-up of composers' tempo (just like GG), but he has his own dedicated fan-base (albeit much smaller than GG's). If one considers WW a "performing clown", then so is GG.


Well, for a start, we're all biological machines, but the way you are using the term implies something robotic. The premise that CM performers should robotically perform exactly as written assumes that the score always gives enough information to do so, implies that the composer insisted on an exact translation and removes the application of interpretive skill. Which pretty much would tear the heart out of classical music performances.

When one applies names such as 'trolls' and 'performing clowns' to performers with skill and talent that one could only dream of having, the response of practically everyone reading such dribble is likely, 'Consider the source.'


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Well, for a start, we're all biological machines, but the way you are using the term implies something robotic. The premise that CM performers should robotically perform exactly as written assumes that the score always gives enough information to do so, implies that the composer insisted on an exact translation and removes the application of interpretive skill. Which pretty much would tear the heart out of classical music performances.
> 
> When one applies names such as 'trolls' and 'performing clowns' to performers with skill and talent that one could only dream of having, the response of practically everyone reading such dribble is likely, 'Consider the source.'


I agree with you on this point at least, !


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Let's be honest, classical music performers are mostly "biological machines" playing stuff already written on score. It is my view that performers should be "obedient servants" to composers, in playing the composers' music. If they're not, they're just "trolls".


I suppose Schumann was dishonest when he said that how a performer moves from one note to another is as important as the notes themselves? If you're looking forward to the time when a Horowitz, a Furtwangler or a Callas need no longer exist because we'll have computerized devices that can play with clinical precision all the "stuff already written on score" and nothing more, you're welcome to it. I plan to be dead by then, or close to it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> When one applies names such as 'trolls' and 'performing clowns' to performers with skill and talent that one could only dream of having, the response of practically everyone reading such dribble is likely, 'Consider the source.'


Perhaps describing them by using those terms would be harsh and unfair, but we've never been short of talented professional performers. There are always hundreds of other performers (who play the same music) to turn to, even if we don't listen to a certain selected few. And in my view, they all play reasonably well, but I have some aversion to performers doing "weird interpretations".
We'll keep getting Uchidas, Schiffs, Barenboims in the future, but we'll never get the likes of the great composers of the past. I don't see as much "rarity value" in modern-day performers' "talents" as you do.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> Perhaps describing them by using those terms would be harsh and unfair, but we've never been short of talented professional performers. There are always hundreds of other performers (who play the same music) to turn to, even if we don't listen to a certain selected few. And in my view, they all play reasonably well, but I have some aversion to performers doing "weird interpretations".
> *We'll keep getting Uchidas, Schiffs, Barenboims in the future, *but we'll never get the likes of the great composers of the past. I don't see as much "rarity value" in modern-day performers' "talents" as you do.


That's not necessarily a guarantee, ya know? And besides, you only seem to be taking into account performers that play the standard repertoire for the most part. What about pianists like Pierre-Laurent Aimard? Without their particular talents taking the lead on new works we might never have even gotten the chance to hear Ligeti's piano works, for example.

In any case, without any performers at all we would never hear any of the music we love so much, so the fact that you insist on dehumanizing them is very odd. Don't they deserve accolades for what they've done despite how "dispensable" you seem to think they are"? If a computer is as good at conveying the music on the score as one of these "biological robots" why would I rather listen to a work on a recording rather than on a midi file I input into Finale or Sibelius?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

And as for performers like Glenn Gould and his "weird interpretations", I don't see the problem. The only problem there would be is if no one ever provided an accurate to the times/score recording of Bach etc. and we obviously don't see that happening. As long as most performances are generally faithful to the score, performers like Glen Gould providing fresh looks at old works can only be a good thing in my opinion. I promise his interpretations don't hurt Bach's feelings.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

violadude said:


> And as for performers like Glenn Gould and his "weird interpretations", I don't see the problem. The only problem there would be is if no one ever provided an accurate to the times/score recording of Bach etc. and we obviously don't see that happening. As long as most performances are generally faithful to the score, performers like Glen Gould providing fresh looks at old works can only be a good thing in my opinion. I promise his interpretations don't hurt Bach's feelings.


It takes a very skilled performer to accomplish what Gould did in my opinion. I was always under the impression his Bach was fairly accurate to the score, but it was everything else he tampered with.

I don't think the number of faithful vs interpretative is a problem, personally.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I can’t imagine how restricted my CM listening would be if every performer played a given work the same way in an attempt to meet some alleged rigid demand of the composer. Case in point, a work such as the Beethoven Sonata #32. In different hands such as those of Barenboim, Pogorelich, Trifonov etc., this wonderful creation is new every time I hear it. What a gift is the interpretative skills of these performers.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The composers gave us the notes and a few rough instructions for what to do with them. There are many things that need to be done with them which the composer can't specify, and much diversity of approach within the requirements of the score. Performances can be strikingly different and all be legitimate readings of what's on paper. A performance can leave us indifferent and feeling as if the piece is mediocre music; another performance of the same work can send us flying and make us feel we're listening to a masterpiece. Listen to the average soprano sing "Qui la voce" from Bellini's _I Puritani_ and you'll think "that was pretty." Listen to Maria Callas sing it and your heart will break.

Performers are co-creators with the composers - composers know this and rely on it - and to deny them the title of "artist" is absurd.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"All Time Greats"? Not too sure about that, but I'm betting against Satie and Ketèlbey.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> The composers gave us the notes and a few rough instructions for what to do with them. There are many things that need to be done with them which the composer can't specify, and much diversity of approach within the requirements of the score. Performances can be strikingly different and all be legitimate readings of what's on paper. A performance can leave us indifferent and feeling as if the piece is mediocre music; another performance of the same work can send us flying and make us feel we're listening to a masterpiece. Listen to the average soprano sing "Qui la voce" from Bellini's _I Puritani_ and you'll think "that was pretty." Listen to Maria Callas sing it and your heart will break.
> 
> Performers are co-creators with the composers - composers know this and rely on it - and to deny them the title of "artist" is absurd.


I'd like to point out that composers like Beethoven and Mahler were known to conduct their works very differently from performance to performance. Mahler said something to the effect of "I curse the conductor who does not do all he can to improve my music!" Bach and Chopin improvised on their own music when performing it, constantly experimenting in search of fulfillment. I view the score as a basic guide for interpretation- a sort of fertile field that is wide open for all sorts of crops to be cultivated. They all share the same foundation (the score) but they all have various purposes. Performers who simply regurgitate the notes on the page often do so because they want to be "as faithful to the original intents as possible," but in reality they're not taking the daring leaps that characterize the artistry that speaks most to me. Who are we to say that Beethoven would not approve of Barbirolli's slowly-unfolding but incredibly dramatic Eroica just the same as Gardiner's crisp, turbulent approach that is labeled as "historically informed?" Both approaches are equally valid and equally dramatic IMO- just in drastically different ways. One takes a view of the work as an epic narrative to be patiently told, and the other as a bravura display of revolutionary potential. Now, I do indeed have mixed views about such extreme performers as Gould and Stokowski who often took very polarizing liberties. But ultimately, they are artists because their craft is to interpret and project the ideas contained in the score, just as the composer's craft is to interpret and project their own abstract ideas into music. I would like to see radical artists like Furtwangler and Richter steal the classical music scene in today's age, rather than scores of technically brilliant young performers who have been taught all they need to know about playing every detail of the score immaculately, but are rather clueless about interpretation. In my view, a resurgence of such artists as the former group would signal a very positive trend in the ongoing efforts to keep classical music "alive" and "relevant." Just my two cents.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Case in point: Scriabin specifically marked his own Prelude in A minor (Op.11 No.2) "allegretto" and he played it himself at that tempo in a recording.

[ 0:48 ]










Nowadays, many performers play it at "moderato".










What do you make of this?
I think the mentality behind this is _"I understand/know the piece better than the composer"_.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> Case in point: Scriabin specifically marked his own Prelude in A minor (Op.11 No.2) "allegretto" and he played it himself at that tempo in a recording.
> 
> What do you make of this?
> I think the mentality behind this is _"I understand/know the piece better than the composer"_.


What do you make of this (note the last paragraph, particularly the last 2 sentences):


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Case in point: Scriabin specifically marked his own Prelude in A minor (Op.11 No.2) "allegretto" and he played it himself at that tempo in a recording.
> 
> [ 0:48 ]
> 
> ...


What I make of it is that there are many valid approaches to a piece of music. A tempo is not an absolute, even if indicated by a metronome marking. Composers play their own music differently at different times. We know that in most eras the personal take of the performer has been highly valued, by audiences and by composers themselves. Sibelius praised different conductors playing his symphonies, and we can assume that their tempi and other interpretive choices differed.

In that prelude, I think Richter's take is more interesting than the composer's. Why not? Rachmaninoff told Horowitz that he played his third concerto better than he himself did. We don't know what Scriabin would have thought about Richter, but it shouldn't keep us up at night.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I can vouch for the fact that the performer(s) have revealed emotion and 'music' that I myself didn't forsee on my pages and I'm grateful for it. The performer is much more than a catalyst in my experience and the composer could be his/her own worst enemy if they are unyielding in their insistence on strict adherence to the dots. For me, tempo is the only really contentious issue with which disagreement might occur and only then if a performance is wildly out. Despite that one issue for me, I say long live the Glenn Goulds in the art of performance and interpretation.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Everyone can listen to whatever they want, like some people put ice in their single malt Scotch--you're ruining the whisky--of course, but you bought it and it's your palate.

Horowitz and Richter are great pianists, they can get away with anything. It becomes a problem only when the ego of the musician become greater than his skill, then you'll see very bad performances, and there are plenty of them.

On the other side you have the uncreative musicians who are like actors following a script and fail to understand the storyline and emotions of a piece, many times with great technique. Performance is definitely an art, and many performers are trained well schooled machines, and far from artists, just like some composers.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

1996D said:


> Everyone can listen to whatever they want, like some people put ice in their single malt Scotch--you're ruining the whisky--of course, but you bought it and it's your palate.
> 
> Horowitz and Richter are great pianists, they can get away with anything. *It becomes a problem only when the ego of the musician become greater than his skill*, then you'll see very bad performances, and there are plenty of them.
> 
> On the other side you have the uncreative musicians who are like actors following a script and fail to understand the storyline and emotions of a piece, many times with great technique. Performance is definitely an art, and many performers are trained well schooled machines, and far from artists, just like some composers.


Indeed.

Funnily enough those trained composers and performers might not be to your taste (and that is all your post can possibly ever mean), but the training will have enabled them to find their own musicality regardless. You should know this as one who has mastered and even innovated technique, right?....


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Funnily enough those trained composers and performers might not be to your taste (and that is all your post can possibly mean), but the training will have enabled them to find their own musicality regardless. You should know this as one who has mastered and even innovated technique.


Sure, if you're concerned with yourself and want nothing more than a pleasant life where finding your musicality is the goal. You do have a point, to gain everything you have to sacrifice everything.

The artist gives a lot more, that's why he's remembered, it's all very fair.



> It comes down to creative talent vs application of past discoveries. The creative artist innovates, has powerful ideas, excels at his own game; while the uncreative student relies on past innovations and focuses solely on following these rules.


One gives a lot more than the other.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Pleasant is not an adjective I'd use in its entirety, but then again I've been through training. You misunderstand my use of musicality, I should have been more specific. I mean one's inner aesthetics. We all need to do that and training is a good guarantee of achieving it.
Now as much as I enjoy what is becoming our daily bitch, I have a solo violin part to prepare....


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> Pleasant is not an adjective I'd use in its entirety, but then again I've been through training. You misunderstand my use of musicality, I should have been more specific. I mean one's inner aesthetics. We all need to do that and training is a good guarantee of achieving it.
> Now as much as I enjoy what is becoming our daily bitch, I have a solo violin part to prepare....


Everyone has training, no one can learn alone, not even Takemitsu did that.

But yes, it's becoming clearer what your mentality is, it fits your music quite well, I wasn't able to put the two together until now. I didn't know composers could think like you do, completely inwardly, hedonistically driven.

Back then when I criticized your music I assumed something completely different, it was indeed my mistake, things are clearer now.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

1996D said:


> Everyone has training, no one can learn alone, not even Takemitsu did that.
> 
> But yes, it's becoming clearer what your mentality is, it fits your music quite well, I wasn't able to put the two together until now. I didn't know composers could think like you do, completely inwardly, hedonistically driven.
> 
> Back then when I criticized your music I assumed something completely different, it was indeed my mistake, things are clearer now.


Wrong as always, you really are good, nay excellent at being wrong when it comes to composing music. My writing is always about the music, the pursuit of its logic, the exploration of its implications and emotion. You can like that approach or not but it has nothing to do with any definition of hedonism unless you include my proclivities and sense of aesthetics which we all have and which are used as an arbiter whilst writing. All composers have that trait and for you to insinuate anything other is absurdly assumptive, ignorant and insulting, especially coming from an anonymous person with absolutely no credentials or credibility whatsoever.
There is no arrogance in my work unlike your unsubstantiated posts, declarations and general missing the mark whatsoever. (my particular favourite is the new, innovative, utterly original counterpoint, I'm really looking forward to hearing that). If what I write moves people (and it has), then that's fabulous - one can't expect nor wish for anymore. Other than that, I do not flounce around expecting to change the world and nor should you because let's be honest, you wont and are probably clueless when it comes to composing music with any semblance of lofty intent. There wont be many who are buying your narcissistic, deluded spiel I'm sure...perhaps you need reminding that you are talking to professionals and smart adults here.

Of course you can change all of this bad attitude in one simple post with a link to your work, but let me guess...............pathetic.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> Wrong as always, you really are good, nay excellent at being wrong when it comes to composing music. My writing is always about the music, the pursuit of its logic, the exploration of its implications. You can like that approach or not but it has nothing to do with any definition of hedonism unless you include my proclivities and sense of aesthetics which we all have and which are used as an arbiter whilst writing.
> There is no arrogance in my work unlike your unsubstantiated posts, declarations and general missing the mark whatsoever. If what I write moves people (and it has), then that's fabulous - one can't expect nor wish for anymore. Other than that, I do not flounce around expecting to change the world and nor should you because let's be honest, you wont and are probably clueless when it comes to composing music with any semblance of lofty intent. There wont be many who are buying your narcissistic, deluded spiel I'm sure...perhaps you need reminding that you are talking to professionals and smart adults here.
> 
> Of course you can change all of this bad attitude in one simple post with a link to your work, but let me guess...............pathetic.


Your anger only confirms the verdict.

No publicity is bad publicity though, so you should be thanking me.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

1996D said:


> Your anger only confirms the verdict.
> 
> No publicity is bad publicity though, so you should be thanking me.


What verdict, do you mean your opinion? So what.
My anger is with your cowardice . Wrong again...and some music ...please


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> My anger is with your cowardice. Wrong again.





> If what I write moves people (and it has), then that's fabulous - one can't expect nor wish for anymore.


To me this is cowardice, having ambition and stating it is the exact opposite.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

1996D said:


> To me this is cowardice, having ambition and stating it is the exact opposite.


I'm sorry, I don't care. You keep on hiding though.

Now about your work. I, and I'm sure others too, really want to hear it. I'm keen to see the original approach to counterpoint, care to describe it? How much orchestration have you studied, is that something else you've mastered? Do tell...pretty please.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> I'm sorry, I don't care. You keep on hiding though.
> 
> Now about your work. I, and I'm sure others too, really want to hear it. I'm keen to see the original approach to counterpoint, care to describe it? How much orchestration have you studied, is that something else you've mastered? Do tell...pretty please.


The goal was never to hurt you, it was to know how exactly you've come to write what you have, how you view yourself and your music. The person and the music are tied, you need to grow as a person for your music to do the same.

In the end it's not only intelligence and musicality, but character that makes a composer; it's about the love you have to give. You keep talking about technique like it can somehow work around this, but it can't, I've tried to tell you this many times in many different ways.

It's the soul that makes the artist; the sacrifice; the goodness; the purpose.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> Thanks BrahmsWasA... most appreciated. You must link some of your work.
> 
> No, I didn't intentionally mean to imply that the composer gets to choose at what point he/she is beyond objective assessment. It is fair to say though that a composer will realise at some point that they know even more so than earlier, what they want to say, are fluent and cohesive in what they say and able to do it without technical restriction and in a successful way - ideally their ability will tally with their aesthetics and allow them to push even further if they wish. I accept that one can only infer maturity in another composer, but surely the evidence for a mature work over an early work can be discerned easily enough on some levels. As for me, I've learnt a great deal about myself in my studies and pro life and would consider myself able to write whatever I feel and be able to do it well....well you did ask..
> 
> I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph and was attempting to inject a reasonable and cautious, perhaps even slightly flawed methodology that might offer a solution and be a little more than just opinion.


One day I hope to share some of my compositions and/or performances with this forum. I'm only 20 (and do not intend to be a professional musician), so I'm certainly still in my "formative" years in both life and music, but I'll share some stuff with everyone here nonetheless. 

I think you make a lot of good points in your posts, but I'd still hesitate to accept the equivalence between being a mature composer and being "objectively" of equal (or simply incomparable) quality to, say, Beethoven or Bach. And I'd also say that being mature as an artist does not necessarily mean you have no room to refine your craft. I'm glad to hear that you feel like you can express yourself through music well, but surely you are still looking to learn and improve in every way you can, no?

Of course, music is not a science, and so trying to formally define and/or measure objective greatness or quality can be difficult and dangerous even if such notions do generally exist and are to some degree relevant in assessing music. Using technical benchmarks is a reasonable starting point, but I'd certainly say that one should take into account a composer's preferences and style before determining which technical skills are relevant to artistic development and maturity.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

1996D said:


> The goal was never to hurt you, it was to know how exactly you've come to write what you have, how you view yourself and your music. The person and the music are tied, you need to grow as a person for your music to do the same.
> 
> In the end it's not only intelligence and musicality, but character that makes a composer; it's about the love you have to give. You keep talking about technique like it can somehow work around this, but it can't, I've tried to tell you this many times in many different ways.
> 
> It's the soul that makes the artist; the sacrifice; the goodness; the purpose.


I see you are clueless about many things and not just composing music, your powers of assumption are very dodgy. BTW, don't worry It's ok, I'm not hurt (thanks for the concern), I'm fully grown up in every sense, oh and because I'm married to a lovely woman, I get all the advice I need so forgive me for ignoring yours. 
You'll understand composing one day soon too, although, from what you have written above it would appear that you do not understand the symbiotic connection between the "soul" and the technique, how one feeds the other, which is very strange given your alleged mastery, one can only draw certain conclusions from that. At some stage you'll need to get to grips with your disconnect if you are going to change the world because it'll be as useful and essential to you when actually composing as any external influence.

Anyhow, it's rude to ignore posts, so how about answering my previous posts questions...


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> One day I hope to share some of my compositions and/or performances with this forum. I'm only 20 (and do not intend to be a professional musician), so I'm certainly still in my "formative" years in both life and music, but I'll share some stuff with everyone here nonetheless.
> 
> I think you make a lot of good points in your posts, but I'd still hesitate to accept the equivalence between being a mature composer and being "objectively" of equal (or simply incomparable) quality to, say, Beethoven or Bach. And I'd also say that being mature as an artist does not necessarily mean you have no room to refine your craft. I'm glad to hear that you feel like you can express yourself through music well, but surely you are still looking to learn and improve in every way you can, no?
> 
> .


Oh yes I see your points. I certainly didn't mean to imply an objective equivalence to the greats, sorry about any confusion. I also believe in a continuos journey to refine and delve deeper and meant not to imply anything other. This is why on my site for example, you will hear tonal works _and_ atonal works - not really the products of a mind stagnating, more one probing and pushing ones barriers - there should be no respite imv.

I take your last point too, but remember also that whilst the young composer is learning and practicing techniques, they are also finding out about their own preferences because they will be exposed to new ways and will naturally feel drawn to one method over another. That is one way they begin to experience their own aesthetics, via newly discovered affinities and methods. One takes them on board and begin to own them and use them in a personal way. Of course YMMV on that.

I look forward to hearing your work.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> I see you are clueless about many things and not just composing music, your powers of assumption are very dodgy. BTW, don't worry It's ok, I'm not hurt (thanks for the concern), I'm fully grown up in every sense, oh and because I'm married to a lovely woman, I get all the advice I need so forgive me for ignoring yours.
> You'll understand composing one day soon too, although,* from what you have written above it would appear that you do not understand the symbiotic connection between the "soul" and the technique, how one feeds the other,* which is very strange given your alleged mastery, one can only draw certain conclusions from that. At some stage you'll need to get to grips with your disconnect if you are going to change the world because it'll be as useful and essential to you when actually composing as any external influence.
> 
> Anyhow, it's rude to ignore posts, so how about answering my previous posts questions...





> Of course they are, in my view with a great message comes inevitably great technique because the delivery of the former demands it--it extracts out of the composer every single resource and if it's not readily there it brings it out of him--he does whatever he must to acquire it--because the greatness of the idea demands it: at its core this is what art is. As Debussy said "Works of art make rules; rules do not make works of art."
> 
> Yet on the other hand you can have technique and no artistry. Across all art forms there are examples of this, one I like is the Chinese violin players with excellent technique yet seemingly soulless performances, with no storyline whatsoever to their performance. They are trained but aren't artists.


I had already explained here that it goes one way but not the other. Technique can very much exist without artistry.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

One day you'll understand.
Technique is a search tool. After that it becomes a guiding hand, an underpinning, not the end result. You should know this, that you don't is all I need to know.
Now then about your music...?...again.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> One day you'll understand.
> Technique is a search tool. After that it becomes a guiding hand, an underpinning, not the end result. You should know this, that you don't is all I need to know.
> Now then about your music...?...again.


Of course but even with this, it doesn't guarantee anything; you have to look for other ways to grow, technique is not enough.
I've realized this tangibly--improving the person behind the music yields greater results--technique then becomes but a supplement.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

1996D said:


> Of course but even with this, it doesn't guarantee anything; you have to look for other ways to grow, technique is not enough.
> I've realized this tangibly--improving the person behind the music yields greater results--technique then becomes but a supplement.


The technique is not the end result. The composers decisions whilst writing are much more than the sum of theory and technique - the composer adapts those to the musical needs/whims, they are malleable and able to bring forth the unexpected, the spontaneous and one draws on them to support fantasy and imagination. If you had gone through a formal education and understood its application you would understand this. The important thing is the end result not the method. The method can be a guarantee of inevitability and homogeneity if those traits are desired, and they often are.
I will admit that talking like this sounds cold and unemotional in print, which couldn't be further from the truth, but you are failing through your own lack of understanding and experience in these matters, to grasp the salient points whilst mistakenly taking this all at face value alone. Your opinion of mine nor any others music has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that what happens when the two sides of composing meet and energise one another is an incredibly powerful way to compose. Just remember for future conversations sake that the music itself is the final arbiter, not the technique, which is so often a search tool. The methods and self-imposed parameters will always be sacrificed on the altar of inspired or un-forseen events. The spirit lives and dominates, but one suffused with discipline and not swamped by it is most powerful imv.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> The technique is not the end result. The composers decisions whilst writing are much more than the sum of theory and technique - the composer adapts those to the musical needs/whims, they are malleable and able to bring forth the unexpected, the spontaneous and one draws on them to support fantasy and imagination. If you had gone through a formal education and understood its application you would understand this. The important thing is the end result not the method. The method can be a guarantee of inevitability and homogeneity if those traits are desired, and they often are.
> I will admit that talking like this sounds cold and unemotional in print, but you are failing through your own lack of understanding and experience in these matters, to grasp the salient points whilst mistakenly taking this all at face value alone. Your opinion of mine nor any others music has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that what happens *when the two sides of composing meet and energise one another is an incredibly powerful way to compose.* Just remember for future conversations sake that the music itself is the final arbiter, not the technique, which is so often a search tool. The methods and self-imposed parameters will always be sacrificed on the altar of inspired or un-forseen events. The spirit lives and dominates.


You're not understanding what I'm saying--I've already got the technical part, creating on this level is impossible without it--and even if it will continue to indefinitely improve, this is not nearly enough to work up the power necessary to create a masterpiece; there needs to be more; philosophy; mental strength; a greater purpose to drive this pursuit, in which the love you can give may be multiplied endlessly.

This lacks from your music, yet you have all the intellect necessary to acquire it, if indeed it is intellect that is necessary. It might be something else, I'm still pondering this.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

1996D said:


> You're not understanding what I'm saying--I've already got the technical part, creating on this level is impossible without it--and even if it will continue to indefinitely improve, this is not nearly enough to work up the power necessary to create a masterpiece; there needs to be more; philosophy; mental strength; a greater purpose to drive this pursuit, in which the love you can give may be multiplied endlessly.
> 
> *This lacks from your music,* yet you have all the intellect necessary to acquire it, if indeed it is intellect that is necessary. It might be something else, I'm still pondering this.


In your opinion only, you should add if you had any sense of decorum but regardless, I'm confident that people here will see it as just an opinion and not an edict and worse still, one with absolutely no competent back-up whatsoever. It's quite something to be so dismissive of something you don't understand or something you can't do when cowering behind a digital wall, well done. And, from what I gather about your preferences, I'm in good company anyway. Care to level the playing field and give me some of your signed work to be equally judgemental on?
BTW, I do understand exactly what you are saying and no, you haven't got the technical part, you're not fooling anyone - I just have a different way that's all and I have all the traits necessary. We _could_ do this in a friendly manner but I doubt you are capable.

so..about your music...?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> In your opinion only, you should add if you had any sense of decorum but regardless, I'm confident that people here will see it as just an opinion and not an edict and worse still, *one with absolutely no competent back-up whatsoever.* It's quite something to be so dismissive of something you don't understand or something you can't do from behind a digital wall. And, from what I gather about your preferences, I'm in good company anyway. Care to level the playing field and give me some of your signed work to be equally judgemental on?
> BTW, I do understand exactly what you are saying and no, you haven't got the technical part, you're not fooling anyone - I just have a different way that's all and I all the traits necessary. We _could_ do this in a friendly manner but I doubt you are capable


You know, you keep mentioning that, but I consider my arguments to be purer if they have no back-up, it's more of a challenge, and this is always what I'm looking for.

I'm being very friendly BTW: my technique is much, much better than yours: that's something of the sort I would continue on if pure honesty--mean one--was being applied. But again much of my ability is down to creative gifts, you've perhaps had to work much harder for your music than I've assumed, and then this would be very mean indeed.

I have no idea if you've reached your potential or not, or how hard you're working, this is such an interesting subject. I must assume that you know very little about what I'm doing as well, yet you keep criticizing a technique you've never heard--you want to hear it that bad?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

1996D said:


> You know, you keep mentioning that, but I consider my arguments to be purer if they have no back-up, it's more of a challenge, and this is always what I'm looking for.
> 
> I'm being very friendly BTW: my technique is much, much better than yours: that's something of the sort I would continue on if pure honesty--mean one--was being applied. But again much of my ability is down to creative gifts, you've perhaps had to work much harder for your music than I've assumed, and then this would be very mean indeed.
> 
> I have no idea if you've reached your potential or not, or how hard you're working, this is such an interesting subject. I must assume that you know very little about what I'm doing as well, yet you keep criticizing a technique you've never heard--you want to hear it that bad?


Yes it would all be very mean, except for everything you've assumed being wrong of course. You do have no idea all right, that we can agree on.
Do I want to hear your music, yes. Are you decent enough to put it up for scrutiny? At least you would be judged fairly and objectively by me, not that you deserve it but then again I have essential traits you apparently lack.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> Yes it would all be very mean, except for everything you've assumed being wrong of course. You do have no idea all right, that we can agree on.
> Do I want to hear your music, yes. Are you decent enough to put it up for scrutiny? At least you would be judged fairly and objectively by me, not that you deserve it but then again *I have essential traits you apparently lack*.


What traits are those?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

You didn't answer my question. How about it?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> You didn't answer my question. How about it?


...........What question?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Who won the FA cup in 1924?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> Who won the FA cup in 1924?


You know, and I hope I mean it in all honesty, I think you're better off being a film composer of tonal music in the style of a John Barry or Thomas Newman. You haven't shown any enthusiasm of growing philosophically, and this essential to creating art.

You're wasting your time, and mine, by falsely posing as a serious composer. The first instinct of mine was to help because I put myself in your shoes and of course by helping others we help ourselves--the fire grows and the mind understands different perspectives--but I don't think you've absorbed anything of what we've been discussing.

Maybe you do need to hear my music, but again maybe you don't, maybe you're comfortable exactly where you are and the purpose of these exchanges is just to reassure yourself. You keep sending mixed signals of wanting growth yet not wanting it at the same time.

Tell me honestly, what's the extent of your ambition?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

and yet...everything I've done and achieved might suggest something different to some. Opinionated ad hominem like this is the worst sort and says more about you and your personality than any damming rejoinder I could come up with. A quite disgraceful and unwarranted attack from someone so cowardly. Your ignorance is only matched by your delusional zeal but both are outdone by your arrogance and all will be your downfall at some stage.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> and yet...everything I've done and achieved might suggest something different to some. Opinionated ad hominem like this is the worst sort and says more about you and your personality than any damming rejoinder I could come up with. A quite disgraceful and unwarranted attack from someone so cowardly. Your ignorance is only matched by your delusional zeal but both are outdone by your arrogance and all will be your downfall at some stage.


It was still a worthwhile pursuit, your constant attacks on my technique just give me more fuel to continue improving, hopefully I've done the same for you.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mikeh375 said:


> and yet...everything I've done and achieved might suggest something different to some. Opinionated ad hominem like this is the worst sort and says more about you and your personality than any damming rejoinder I could come up with. A quite disgraceful and unwarranted attack from someone so cowardly. Your ignorance is only matched by your delusional zeal but both are outdone by your arrogance and all will be your downfall at some stage.


It's OK, Mike. Just try to look forward to the day when small plastic busts of 1996D, made in China by the Ivanka Trump Company, turn up in your local charity shop. That's how we'll know music has been saved and there's hope for humanity and polar bears.

(I should warn you, though: keep an eye on your TC inbox. Things could get ugly there. I speak from painful experience.)


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> (I should warn you, though: keep an eye on your TC inbox. Things could get ugly there. I speak from painful experience.)


That's different, you kept causing my threads to be closed, you had to be shown out.

BTW Mike,

How can you see the world in the way that you do and feel comfortable? I think in your last post is where you truly revealed yourself, if you indeed believe what you wrote. I don't think a person like the one you're imagining myself to be exists or has ever, you're sounding like Woodduck when he implied that he believed every world leader to be a psychopath.

This is just not how things are, the world is a beautiful place, truthfully. There is some evil but it's fair, you only get what's coming to you.

If you're a good person you have nothing to fear, I'll tell you, as much as you might believe all those things you said, nothing bad has ever happened to me. I know I'm a good, moral person, who cultivates reason, and this is shown in the many blessings God has given me.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> It's OK, Mike. Just try to look forward to the day when small plastic busts of 1996D, made in China by the Ivanka Trump Company, turn up in your local charity shop. That's how we'll know music has been saved and there's hope for humanity and polar bears.
> 
> (I should warn you, though: keep an eye on your TC inbox. Things could get ugly there. I speak from painful experience.)


LOL. I don't want to even imagine what your inbox is like WD, but am sure it's always handled with the utmost aplomb if your posts are anything to go by.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

1996D said:


> That's different, you kept causing my threads to be closed, you had to be shown out.
> 
> BTW Mike,
> 
> ...


Give it a rest, your really not helping yourself and you are trying too hard - talk about me, revealing myself! The mods'll be here soon if you're not careful.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> Give it a rest, your really not helping yourself and you are trying too hard - talk about me, revealing myself! The mods'll be here soon if you're not careful.


Your accusations are what the mods might look into.



> Your ignorance is only matched by your delusional zeal but both are outdone by your arrogance and all will be your downfall at some stage.


That's not very nice is it? You are revealing yourself indeed.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

How is it that the more "ambitious" or pretentious a young composer is nowadays, the higher the likelihood that they think they discovered a new theory of music (or some part of it) that will change everything?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> How is it that the more "ambitious" or pretentious a young composer is nowadays, the higher the likelihood that they think they discovered a new theory of music that will change everything?


A theory? I just said I've found an original way to construct a piece, a new form, not anything about theory.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

1996D said:


> A theory? I just said I've found an original way to construct a piece, a new form, not anything about theory.


Which is.......


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

1996D said:


> You know,... I consider my arguments to be purer if they have no back-up...


This has to be the most (unintentionally) hilarious comment I've seen on this forum in a long time. :lol:


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> Which is.......


Now why would I spoil it?



Bluecrab said:


> This has to be the most (unintentionally) hilarious comment I've seen on this forum in a long time. :lol:


You forgot to finish what I wrote.


> because it's more of a challenge.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

If you shared it, perhaps mikeh and I would decide to compose something in this revolutionary new form as well... The win would be yours, if it's worth anything.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> If you shared it, perhaps mikeh and I would decide to compose something in this revolutionary new form as well... The win would be yours, if it's worth anything.


You're a composer?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

1996D said:


> You're a composer?


I don't believe you are a composer.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> I don't believe you are a composer.


Ok? Quite an intro


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I don't believe you are a composer.


Well, Bulldog, I suspect that that puts you in a large majority of the membership here.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

1996D said:


> That's different, you kept causing my threads to be closed, you had to be shown out.


You give me too much credit. And I'm not "out."



> you're sounding like Woodduck when he implied that he believed every world leader to be a psychopath.


You're mistaken. I don't believe that, nor did I imply it.



> This is just not how things are, the world is a beautiful place, truthfully. There is some evil but it's fair, you only get what's coming to you.


If you believed that, you'd accept "what's coming to you" on this forum with more grace, and not assume you had either the right or the power to "show people out."

I want to hear your music too. It might give you some credibility. Or not.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Well, I'm going to go compose now, Fabulin you unfortunately didn't answer. If you want to know about the form, it's suited to my strengths, so I doubt you'd want to try it out, as for Mike.. well I'll just leave it at that.

I will reaffirm that I mean no harm to any of you, and if you've read my posts you know that this is a process that I believe will help me in my composing. I wholeheartedly believe that through challenge comes greater strength, and this is what I seek for my music.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> It's OK, Mike. Just try to look forward to the day when small plastic busts of 1996D, made in China by the Ivanka Trump Company, turn up in your local charity shop. That's how we'll know music has been saved and there's hope for humanity and polar bears.
> 
> (I should warn you, though: keep an eye on your TC inbox. Things could get ugly there. I speak from painful experience.)


I'm excited by the concept of busts made in China by the Ivanka Trump Company. Is there a link?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> I'm excited by the concept of busts made in China by the Ivanka Trump Company. Is there a link?


It's just in the concept stage right now. Everything depends on young composers putting their money where their mouths are, so to speak.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Old Internet Forum adage (complete the sentence): "Don't Feed the _____!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mikeh375 said:


> In your opinion only, you should add if you had any sense of decorum but regardless, I'm confident that people here will see it as just an opinion and not an edict and worse still, one with absolutely no competent back-up whatsoever. It's quite something to be so dismissive of something you don't understand or something you can't do when cowering behind a digital wall, well done. And, from what I gather about your preferences, I'm in good company anyway. Care to level the playing field and give me some of your signed work to be equally judgemental on?
> BTW, I do understand exactly what you are saying and no, you haven't got the technical part, you're not fooling anyone - I just have a different way that's all and I have all the traits necessary. We _could_ do this in a friendly manner but I doubt you are capable.
> 
> so..about your music...?


Haha. This lovers' spat between you and 1996D. I never really listened to your music till today, just listened to your Violin Sonata. It's beyond criticism. If I was to write something longer than miniatures, I would aim for that sort. Who are your influences? You say you admire Britten, which I could sort of tell. I can't really tell the more contemporary vibes. Maybe a bit of Schnittke or Johnston?


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Old Internet Forum adage (complete the sentence): "Don't Feed the _____!


DNFT is not bandied about enough these days.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Haha. This lovers' spat between you and 1996D. I never really listened to your music till today, just listened to your Violin Sonata.* It's beyond criticism.* If I was to write something longer than miniatures, I would aim for that sort. Who are your influences? You say you admire Britten, which I could sort of tell. I can't really tell the more contemporary vibes. Maybe a bit of Schnittke or Johnston?


It's over between us now Phil, for good. What are you doing tonight?.....XXXX....

I can't say re influences. There are so many composers I admire it'd be crazy to pin it down. If you listen further you'll hear more overtly tonal work too, especially the Partita Concordia which is a response to Bach. Britten's technical, inventive and musical prowess has had a major impact on me though for sure, at least in spirit and perhaps more overtly at times. Tippett too at times. But you see once I start, I have to mention Dutilleux etc. etc. etc. It's a good thing if you can't really hear influence, right?

thanks again Phil.


----------

