# What role do you think music history plays in the writing of new compositions?



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Do you think composers should strive to be as absolutely unique as possible? Or do you think they should try to "improve" upon older or more current styles? How important is it to adhere to contemporary trends?

My current thinking is that before any more "progress" in music composition can be made, we need to more properly account for the past 700 years of music history, gauge what musical ventures were more successful and which were less successful, and continue from there. It would do no good solely to focus on compositions from the last century, which only scratches the surface of men's (and women's) previous accomplishments. It's the information age - we have vast sources of information on the past. Why not put it to good use?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The individual's ego plays a big part in how he answers your questions, eh? I am not and will not be a composer of music, so all I can offer is an observation: Bartók studied regional folk music, Baroque from Italy and Germany, Wagner and Debussy, and in his maturity composed music that was his own, and that many people appreciate. What outcome are you aiming for?

Completely beside the point: I like your sig. I will modify it for my own use as: Man is an intelligence in servitude to his brain, which has a lot of stuff to do.

Possibly calls for a fap.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Music history isn't something that can be ignored by a composer. If a composer is being "original," in what context is he being "original?" Originality only exists because there is something to conform to, i.e. historical standards.

That or I just don't get the question.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Personally, I think we are entering an era where science can play as much a role in the composition of new music as recognition of cultural history.

I think the advent of evolutionary musicology is a marvellous thing, and, while there are many points of it that still remain contentious and unresolved, we have already learned so much about the way the human mind processes sounds and music. I will not make the fallacious argument that we should compose in favour of our predispositions because what is natural is good - that's unfair and illogical - _however_, I do believe that one of the values most central to the artistic ideal (and this is why I love the Preface to Wordsworth and Coleridge's _Lyrical Ballads_ so much, as it set this forth as a revolutionary idea) is that it should be _as easy as possible_ for _as many people as possible_ to engage with it and understand it. It is because of _that_ reason that I believe people should write music in favour of our brains' unique abilities.


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

I think that composers should try to make good music. Uniqueness is only a positive if it serves to enrich the composition. I've heard many "original" pieces that are surely not "good" music by any objective standard. Dismissing hundreds of years of accumulated musical knowledge in preference of some contrived "new" compositional style does not generally make for good music. Sad but true. You have to master the old forms before you can truly build upon them.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

To the OP's question. I think a lot, or should even be a prerequisite, if the composer is a truely talented one. From JS Bach to Bartok, they all studied music of the past, and many wrote variations of old music, synthesized the pieces and wrote new music then. It's when the cowboys start wanting to be adventurous by making new sounds technically qualify as music, that a whole new (radical) world of soundscapes start.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> Do you think composers should strive to be as absolutely unique as possible? Or do you think they should try to "improve" upon older or more current styles? How important is it to adhere to contemporary trends?


I think a composer worth his/her "salt" does all of these things & more. Composition, as far as I can hear it, is a synthesis of many things, old & new, at the service of what the composer wants to achieve in a particular composition. Shostakovich said that with each new composition, he was looking at a new "problem," so had to find different "solutions" to it. Of course, some composers go towards "tradition" more & others swing towards the "cutting edge." Some are in the middle.



> My current thinking is that before any more "progress" in music composition can be made, we need to more properly account for the past 700 years of music history, gauge what musical ventures were more successful and which were less successful, and continue from there.


I think "progress" in music is being made all the time. Whether people like it or not is another matter, imo. I don't think it's a matter of what trends were "successful" or "less successful" in the past. It's more of a matter of what a composer wants to achieve in terms of their "voice." Composers have dealt with this in different ways. Arvo Part, after an earlier "avant-garde" phase, went into silence & came out of it with an interest in ancient church musics, & incorporated these into his own style. Our own Ross Edwards retreated to the Australian bush, did some recordings on tape of birdsong, storms, rain falling, etc. & came out of it with a kind of "organic" minimalism. Similarly, Messiaen travelled the world recording & transcribing bird song. I think that composers, like anyone, have their passions which they pursue to perfect their art.



> It would do no good solely to focus on compositions from the last century, which only scratches the surface of men's (and women's) previous accomplishments. It's the information age - we have vast sources of information on the past. Why not put it to good use?


This is correct, we have such a rich resource at our fingertips now. People saying that what guys like post-1945 composers did is irrelevant or "niche" - are they kidding? Now, you can get hold of a whole lot of these guy's recordings and scores, whereas composers in earlier times had little to go on from the "greats," their predecessors. Mozart's knowledge of say J.S. Bach was much less than what our own composers have of him now. Since the 1970's, all of the Second Viennese School's published works have been made available on record/disc. Previously overshadowed/obscure composers like Zemlinsky have resurfaced "with a vengeance." What greats like Elgar & Schoenberg (both largely self-taught) knew of earlier musics is much eclipsed by the current generations of composers, whose level of formal education is of a very high standard. So no wonder composers like Brett Dean & Charles Wourinen are able to draw on & pay tribute to various composers from the past - Gesualdo & Josquin respectively...

As for what HC wrote above -
Students studying music at university level today still study large tracts of the whole history of music. Composition students do this, so too do those learning an instrument (they learn to play their instruments both in the modern way and in the "period instruments" ways).


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I appreciate any and all replies - I spend about 50% of my free time studying music history, so these questions are of great interest to me!



Polednice said:


> I do believe that one of the values most central to the artistic ideal (and this is why I love the Preface to Wordsworth and Coleridge's _Lyrical Ballads_ so much, as it set this forth as a revolutionary idea) is that it should be _as easy as possible_ for _as many people as possible_ to engage with it and understand it. It is because of _that_ reason that I believe people should write music in favour of our brains' unique abilities.


I'm not sure I agree with this. If this were true, then composers would only write pop music - that type of music that only requires the least amount of effort from listeners... basically, the equivalent of kintergarden-level picture books. I thought a fundamental aspect of most "serious" classical music was that it required a higher level of intellectual engagement from the listener, and yielded much more fruitful results... certainly true of Brahms, in any case!



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> To the OP's question. I think a lot, or should even be a prerequisite, if the composer is a truely talented one. From JS Bach to Bartok, they all studied music of the past, and many wrote variations of old music, synthesized the pieces and wrote new music then. It's when the cowboys start wanting to be adventurous by making new sounds technically qualify as music, that a whole new (radical) world of soundscapes start.


I agree - I believe the best composers are those who try to improve and refine what has been done in the past, creating a new voice for themselves. Bartok synthesized folk music with elements of the classical tradition to create a very unique voice. Messian synthesized his love of birdsong with new modes based on variants of older scale models (if I understand that correctly). It parallels the business world - the most successful businesses are typically those that try to improve on current products, and true "entrepreneurs" are successful only very rarely.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> I'm not sure I agree with this. If this were true, then composers would only write pop music - that type of music that only requires the least amount of effort from listeners... basically, the equivalent of kintergarden-level picture books. I thought a fundamental aspect of most "serious" classical music was that it required a higher level of intellectual engagement from the listener, and yielded much more fruitful results... certainly true of Brahms, in any case!


I think that takes it to an unnecessary extreme.

After all, to stick with the literary example for just a moment, Wordsworth and Coleridge did not appeal to a broader, less academic audience by writing the 19th century equivalent of: "THIS IS COOL POETRY, LOL." I should add the qualifier, then, that artists ought to strive to achieve and say what they want by using the simplest, most commonly understood means possible. You can't dilute what Brahms achieves in his music by reducing it to the quality of a pop song, but you could probably manage the same emotional and intellectual engagement in music far more complex, intimidating, and alien to our brains' way of processing sound. Brahms is, once again, the ideal!


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2011)

These kinds of conversations are interesting for what they do and for how far what they do is from the ostensible topic.

So far, with maybe one exception, what we've gotten is quite a lot of what listeners want composers to write for them. (This is the classic master/slave or consumer/producer pattern which, try as we may to make it fit an artistic or even an aesthetic situation, doesn't really quite do the trick.) So we've gotten, and will continue to get I am sure, a lot of information about listeners and what certain listeners want from their sla... composers.

What we have not got and quite possibly will never get is any sensible, informed, or intelligent conversation about music history (the ostensible topic) or about how informed artists should be about current trends (an even better topic than the ostensible one, and the topic the OP actually intended so far as I can see) or even about how trends come about in the first place (and interesting topic that will never get off the ground).

This will, sadly, be yet another "I want something and these damned modern composers refuse to give it to me" bashing of contemporary music. We will hear only about what the posters want and like and nothing about what the music is like (though the posts will most definitely pretend to be doing this latter thing!).

How depressing.

<HC: insert fart joke, here.>


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I see what you're saying, Polednice. So whatever the new compositions may be, they may be structurally and emotionally complex, but they should always try to keep the listener in mind. Fair enough. Maybe people like Varese, Stockhausen and Xenakis secretly hate people, which would explain all the frightening sounds they make..


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Thank you, some guy, for dragging the tone of this thread through the dirt when, actually, everyone else was having an honest, interesting discussion. Thank you also for not bothering to offer your thoughts, opting instead to deconstruct precisely how we are all wasting our time. Your wisdom is immense.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Didn't your mother ever tell you to talk nicely to strangers, someguy?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

some guy said:


> What we have not got and quite possibly will never get is any sensible, informed, or intelligent conversation about music history (the ostensible topic) or about how informed artists should be about current trends (an even better topic than the ostensible one, and the topic the OP actually intended so far as I can see) or even about how trends come about in the first place (and interesting topic that will never get off the ground).


Only a few people here listen to contemporary (as in present day) music (as in all music) and keep up with current trends as best they can.



Ravellian said:


> I'm not sure I agree with this. If this were true, then composers would only write pop music - that type of music that only requires the least amount of effort from listeners... basically, the equivalent of kintergarden-level picture books.


I take it you don't listen to much pop music then? I know Polednice doesn't. How can your opinions be anything like informed when you don't listen to the music of your own time?

Music history is simple, everything has been neatly arranged into categories by previous music historians, it's all a matter of learning and taking everything in. Keeping up to date with new music requires more work and effort. It's about learning for yourself.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Argus said:


> [...]
> Music history is simple, everything has been neatly arranged into categories by previous music historians, it's all a matter of learning and taking everything in. Keeping up to date with new music requires more work and effort. It's about learning for yourself.


And then composing for yourself. (That's what you want to do, fine by me.)


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Argus said:


> I take it you don't listen to much pop music then? I know Polednice doesn't. How can your opinions be anything like informed when you don't listen to the music of your own time?


I didn't say that. I used to listen to pop and rap all the time a few years ago, and I also used to be a huge classic rock fan (especially the experimental/psychedelic rock of 1965-1979). And I still closely follow a few modern pop artists, like Radiohead and U2. But over the years, I realized how much of modern pop sounds the same... and most new music is just rehashed power chords and drum beats with slightly different vocals. You really can't deny that 95% of 21st century pop music is written at the intellectual level of a children's coloring book. Since the 80's, pop music has become a corporate commodity, where innovation is discouraged and artists are encouraged to write the same crap over and over.

I am not nearly as familiar with contemporary classical (from about 1980-2011) as I should be. Right now I'm trying to get a grasp on how contemporary composers approach new compositions, which is what this thread is about.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> You really can't deny that 95% of 21st century pop music is written at the intellectual level of a children's coloring book.


Where does intellect play a part in listening to music? And what makes that music un-intellectual?

Even if what you say is correct and 95% of 21st century pop music is written at the intellectual level of a children's colouring book, that leaves 5% that isn't. Plus, there's lots of clever use of modern technology in pop music.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> I didn't say that. I used to listen to pop and rap all the time a few years ago, and I also used to be a huge classic rock fan (especially the experimental/psychedelic rock of 1965-1979). And I still closely follow a few modern pop artists, like Radiohead and U2. But over the years, I realized how much of modern pop sounds the same... and most new music is just rehashed power chords and drum beats with slightly different vocals. You really can't deny that 95% of 21st century pop music is written at the intellectual level of a children's coloring book. Since the 80's, pop music has become a corporate commodity, where innovation is discouraged and artists are encouraged to write the same crap over and over.
> 
> I am not nearly as familiar with contemporary classical (from about 1980-2011) as I should be. Right now I'm trying to get a grasp on how contemporary composers approach new compositions, which is what this thread is about.


You could also argue that the discussions found on internet forums are 95% nonintellectual, that people are constantly writing the same crap over and over, etc.


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

I'm probably coming at this from Left Field, but composing is about Expression with a Capital E. A composer has a vision, and expresses that vision through the language, form, that he/she feels appropriate to convey that vision.

Music history -as I see it, what contemporaries and past composers have done with the same "notion" or "vision" - always plays a role, same as contemporary or past (fill in the blank) who are relevant to that notion.

Why would composers be any different than writers, painters, or rocket scientists when it comes to creating something? To the extent that it "makes sense", then music history (or human history, or science, or religion) will have a role in shaping a work.

No sacred cows, no obligations other than being true to one's vision. In that context, no need to be shackled by "convention".

My thoughts, not necessarily yours!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

In response to the OP, I think its somewhat important for all three questions, but not necessarily as important as just following one's creative intuition. Its a balance. New for the sake of new doesn't go too far with me. I think there are great composers out there who just do what they do from the heart without doing too much 'checking' to make sure its academically correct, I am not necessarily thinking of 'classical' composers here, ( not to say there aren't any) but that is my opinion.



Hilltroll72 said:


> Completely beside the point: I like your sig. I will modify it for my own use as: Man is an intelligence in servitude to his brain, which has a lot of stuff to do.


Off topic - Ravellian's sig reminded me of some lyrics by Morrisey _'Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? - I don't know _'. I'd like to think its a matter of personal choice, but there are some grey areas here no doubt.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

The only way we will ever have a chance to truly experience something 'new' will be to take a Julius-from-Twins-type-baby...put it in a place where it has absolutely no exposure to music of any sort, at all...teach it everything pretty much except music...surround it with instruments...and let him or her play and continue to play for years, still with absolutely no musical exposure except what they play...whatever comes out of that will be the only untainted music perhaps known to man but something tells me in the end, it won't be exactly unique as there are only so many notes on a scale and eventually this kid will play familiar music...not only to a person who knows music, but to any human being...since this is not likely to happen, neither is a new and unique music we've never heard.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> These kinds of conversations are interesting for what they do and for how far what they do is from the ostensible topic.
> 
> So far, with maybe one exception, what we've gotten is quite a lot of what listeners want composers to write for them. (This is the classic master/slave or consumer/producer pattern which, try as we may to make it fit an artistic or even an aesthetic situation, doesn't really quite do the trick.) So we've gotten, and will continue to get I am sure, a lot of information about listeners and what certain listeners want from their sla... composers.
> 
> ...


I pity your ostensible comments.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Right now I'm trying to get a grasp on how contemporary composers approach new compositions, which is what this thread is about.


It depends on what you mean by "approach". Back in the Baroque, Classical and a significant part of the Romantic, improvisation was an integral part of their artistic creativity. The vast majority of the greats were also virtuosos (often at the keyboad), improvising a lot of music, and without a doubt, much of their musical ideas came out of it from JS Bach to Liszt, for example. Today, improvisation in art music composition is a "lost art", with the obvious exception of jazz.

Here's one for member _some guy_: except for the fart sounds, where improvisation comes naturally via bowel movements, food digestion etc. :tiphat:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*@ HC - *Classical & jazz are no longer worlds apart & haven't been for decades. Ever listened to be-bop (emerged 1940's in USA). Charlie Parker (saxophonist back then, one of the leading lights of this movt.) greatly admired his contemporary classical composers, eg. Varese. Listen to some things by Parker & they have a kind of classical complexity. Go to a concert of classical contemporary music today & you'll inevitably bump into an item or two which plays around with improv & "chance." I go to these quite regularly, one I reviewed HERE on the latest concerts thread. I don't get much replies to these reviews, so now I don't bother posting them, going into the effort. As I said before on my earlier post, students studying instrumental playing at university level learn how to play in all manners, both old & new. Yes, we'll never get the EXACT improv/ornamentation practised in earlier times, but we can go by what we know of their conventions, and we can also create our own new improvs.

People around here seem comfortable with their stereotypes of much classical music, esp. the contemporary things. I agree with the crux of some guy's comments, I would have maybe put it maybe less bluntly (as I did earlier, but no-one replied to what I'm saying). It seems conversations like this either become a slanging match between the various "extremes" &/or "shut out" one group, esp. those in middle ground (anyone notice, Vesteralen has left?). I commend people, eg. as Ravellian has said he'll do, go out and simply experience contemporary classical as best you can, it's the main way to get into it & also wide reading of good books on these issues can also be helpful...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> *@ HC - *Classical & jazz are no longer worlds apart & haven't been for decades. Ever listened to be-bop (emerged 1940's in USA). Charlie Parker (saxophonist back then, one of the leading lights of this movt.) greatly admired his contemporary classical composers, eg. Varese. Listen to some things by Parker & they have a kind of classical complexity. Go to a concert of classical contemporary music today & you'll inevitably bump into an item or two which plays around with improv & "chance." I go to these quite regularly, one I reviewed HERE on the latest concerts thread. I don't get much replies to these reviews, so now I don't bother posting them, going into the effort. As I said before on my earlier post, students studying instrumental playing at university level learn how to play in all manners, both old & new. Yes, we'll never get the EXACT improv/ornamentation practised in earlier times, but we can go by what we know of their conventions, and we can also create our own new improvs.
> 
> People around here seem comfortable with their stereotypes of much classical music, esp. the contemporary things. I agree with the crux of some guy's comments, I would have maybe put it maybe less bluntly (as I did earlier, but no-one replied to what I'm saying). It seems conversations like this either become a slanging match between the various "extremes" &/or "shut out" one group, esp. those in middle ground (anyone notice, Vesteralen has left?). I commend people, eg. as Ravellian has said he'll do, go out and simply experience contemporary classical as best you can, it's the main way to get into it & also wide reading of good books on these issues can also be helpful...


I think you're not picking up my point clearly.

My comment was about improvisation as an "approach" to composing music, referring to jazz as the only dominant art music today with a consistency where both jazz composers and jazz performers improvise as an integral part of composition and performance (member Ravellian's question). I'm not convinced improvisation in today's classical music composers feature as much, as far an using that as an "approach" to composing music is concerned, and certainly not as much as the past. Now whether this is a good thing or not, I don't know. Just an observation. You can name me the great contemporary composers and not many are known as great improvisors, not in the sense that many of the past were primarily known for. Again, whether this is a good thing or not, I don't know.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Sid James said:


> *@ HC - *Classical & jazz are no longer worlds apart & haven't been for decades. Ever listened to be-bop (emerged 1940's in USA). Charlie Parker (saxophonist back then, one of the leading lights of this movt.) greatly admired his contemporary classical composers, eg. Varese. Listen to some things by Parker & they have a kind of classical complexity. Go to a concert of classical contemporary music today & you'll inevitably bump into an item or two which plays around with improv & "chance." I go to these quite regularly, one I reviewed HERE on the latest concerts thread. I don't get much replies to these reviews, so now I don't bother posting them, going into the effort. As I said before on my earlier post, students studying instrumental playing at university level learn how to play in all manners, both old & new. Yes, we'll never get the EXACT improv/ornamentation practised in earlier times, but we can go by what we know of their conventions, and we can also create our own new improvs.
> 
> People around here seem comfortable with their stereotypes of much classical music, esp. the contemporary things. I agree with the crux of some guy's comments, I would have maybe put it maybe less bluntly (as I did earlier, but no-one replied to what I'm saying). It seems conversations like this either become a slanging match between the various "extremes" &/or "shut out" one group, esp. those in middle ground (anyone notice, Vesteralen has left?). I commend people, eg. as Ravellian has said he'll do, go out and simply experience contemporary classical as best you can, it's the main way to get into it & also wide reading of good books on these issues can also be helpful...


I'm sorry for not replying to your posts, they just tend to be a bit... long-winded.  It'd be nice if you could summarize what you're trying to say in a sentence or two at the end of your posts sometimes. I agree with what you were saying about composers needing to find their own voice through whatever means they desire (folk music, birds, improvisation, whatever), but I find that the best composers are still those who try to synthesize their new ideas with traditional practice, in order to provide logical continuity between music of the past and present... and doing so also makes it easier for audiences to appreciate.

Also, I'm not so sure improvisation figures as strongly into contemporary music as you say. Certainly it's not nearly as prevalent as it was in Baroque and Classical times, where improvisation was a necessary skill by most musicians, as Harpy has said. From what I've seen of classical contemporary music it appears to be an eclectic mix of just about everything: symphonies, operas, unique-sounding orchestral works, tape and electronic compositions, everything.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> From what I've seen of classical contemporary music it appears to be an eclectic mix of just about everything: symphonies, operas, unique-sounding orchestral works, tape and electronic compositions, everything.


And mathematical statistics (stochastic processes), and Game Theory.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I think you're not picking up my point clearly.


Well you said improv was a "lost art" which in some ways yes, the old ways of improv are kind of "lost" (but being reconstructed by scholars & musicians, esp. in terms of the HIP movt.) but there are new ways of improv, it has kind of been making a "comeback," esp. since 1945.



> My comment was about improvisation as an "approach" to composing music, referring to jazz as the only dominant art music today with a consistency where both jazz composers and jazz performers improvise as an integral part of composition and performance (member Ravellian's question). I'm not convinced improvisation in today's classical music composers feature as much, as far an using that as an "approach" to composing music is concerned, and certainly not as much as the past.


Well, even from my middling experience with contemporary classical, improv is an integral part of composing/playing for quite a number of composers & musicians today. Esp. in terms of electro-acoustic music, where there is interplay between "live" and recorded elements. Every performance of these things is different, unique. The link I posted in my last post here of the concert I went to recently is an example. John Cage started the ball rolling in many ways, it was taken up by many other composers mainly working with acoustic instruments only, eg. Lutoslawski & Hovhaness incorporating "controlled chance" techniques in their music (eg. things like rhythm & dynamics not notated, so leaving space for improv to be worked out by the performers). So this is a continuation of the past in "new" ways. Chopin's _Piano Sonata #2_ has no metric markings in two of the movts. The metronome only came in around Beethoven's time, but not everyone used it all the time. Now composers can use it or not, it's up to them.

*EDIT* - HERE is the concert I was referring to in the earlier post, the first half was basically a mixture of notated & improv works, one by the performer himself...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> I'm sorry for not replying to your posts, they just tend to be a bit... long-winded.  It'd be nice if you could summarize what you're trying to say in a sentence or two at the end of your posts sometimes.


Well I'll try to do that, but I think that the broader issue is also relevant - people tend to reply to "polarised" views, not "middle of the road" ones. The reactions to some guy (& I've also done that) is a case in point, I'm on a similar wavelength to him, but I often find his ways of putting things kind of polarising.



> ...but I find that the best composers are still those who try to synthesize their new ideas with traditional practice, in order to provide logical continuity between music of the past and present... and doing so also makes it easier for audiences to appreciate.


Well, there are many composers around who do this. As I said, most composers work with something from the past, whether more recent or much older. Nothing comes out of thin air. Arvo Part went way back to ancient Christian church music. Some of our own Australian composers like Matthew Hindson & Brett Dean go back to about the start of the c20th & take things from then till now. Other Aussie composers are interested in our country & region more, the different traditions, cultures. Some engage with pop culture. I mean there's a lot going on now, heaps.



> From what I've seen of classical contemporary music it appears to be an eclectic mix of just about everything: symphonies, operas, unique-sounding orchestral works, tape and electronic compositions, everything.


Well, take out tape & electronic musics, the composers of the past did the same, tended to compose in a variety of "genres." But yes, the boundaries between genres are breaking down now, more & more, but so too in Monteverdi's day, his _Vespers of 1610 _a combination of choral, opera, concerto, sonata, song. Everything under the sun. Just like a Mahler symphony!!!...


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

_Well, take out tape & electronic musics, the composers of the past did the same, tended to compose in a variety of "genres." But yes, the boundaries between genres are breaking down now, more & more, but so too in Monteverdi's day, his Vespers of 1610 a combination of choral, opera, concerto, sonata, song. Everything under the sun. Just like a Mahler symphony!!!..._

Yes, composers of the past did compose in a variety of genres, but they all tended to follow a similar harmonic style. Now composers can pick and choose from tonality, atonality, serialism, minimalism, aleatorics, spatialism (or whatever Varese called it), or something entirely different. There are seemingly no 'expectations' for a contemporary classical composer - they are free to write literally whatever they want. Am I the only one who thinks that the contemporary classical establishment would benefit from giving more restrictions to the composer? In a more highly structured, controlled environment, it would be easier to judge the value of new compositions, rather than the 'anything goes' mentality we seem to have now.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> _Well, take out tape & electronic musics, the composers of the past did the same, tended to compose in a variety of "genres." But yes, the boundaries between genres are breaking down now, more & more, but so too in Monteverdi's day, his Vespers of 1610 a combination of choral, opera, concerto, sonata, song. Everything under the sun. Just like a Mahler symphony!!!..._
> 
> Yes, composers of the past did compose in a variety of genres, but they all tended to follow a similar harmonic style. Now composers can pick and choose from tonality, atonality, serialism, minimalism, aleatorics, spatialism (or whatever Varese called it), or something entirely different. There are seemingly no 'expectations' for a contemporary classical composer - they are free to write literally whatever they want. Am I the only one who thinks that the contemporary classical establishment would benefit from giving more restrictions to the composer? In a more highly structured, controlled environment, it would be easier to judge the value of new compositions, rather than the 'anything goes' mentality we seem to have now.


Boy, I don't really understand this obsession people who don't like contemporary music have with "judging the value" of music. You are the judge. Don't you understand that? If you like it then listen to it, if you don't like it don't. Why do you (and others) make it way more hard than it needs to be.


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

You just opened a can o' worms. 

I agree with you though. As odd as it sounds, restrictions and expectations often seem to encourage creativity!


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

violadude said:


> Boy, I don't really understand this obsession people who don't like contemporary music have with "judging the value" of music. You are the judge. Don't you understand that? If you like it then listen to it, if you don't like it don't. Why do you (and others) make it way more hard than it needs to be.


I didn't say I didn't like it. Didn't you read where I said that I'm currently trying to explore music of the past 30 years much more in-depth? All I'm saying is that contemporary music would, in fact, benefit from a more highly-controlled environment with certain expectations... just like other genres of entertainment have similar expectations when it comes to having a plot and creating drama. It's simply too difficult for any of contemporary classical to appeal to a wider audience, since it utilizes such a hodgepodge of different styles. Audiences like to know what to expect, to a certain degree. What I don't understand is why so many contemporary classical composers seem to be against having any rules or regulations whatsoever.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Curiosity said:


> You just opened a can o' worms.
> 
> I agree with you though. As odd as it sounds, restrictions and expectations often seem to encourage creativity!


How so?

10 letter requirement.


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

I don't quite get why so many of you appear to have "the hate going" for contemporary music.

I, for one, don't always "get" contemporary compositions, but they have the merit of having been written by *artists *(as we must call _all _composers _artists_) who have something to say. As I said in my earluer contrubution to this thread, we may not always understand the language or approach, but do you really think those tomatos they threw at Monteux when he premiered _Le Sacre du Printenmps _in 1913 were thrown by open-minded music lovers, or rather by people who "didn't get" Stravinsky? Almost 100 years later, people throw flowers at the stage rather than rotten vegetables. How many people, in the cold Theater an der Wien on that fateful night in December, "fell" for Beethoven's Fifth?

My point is this: what Stravinsky did that night is no different than what (name your favourite contemporary composer) tries to do: express a vision, and stretch the musical envelope. Isn't that, in itself, worthy of respect?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> I didn't say I didn't like it. Didn't you read where I said that I'm currently trying to explore music of the past 30 years much more in-depth? All I'm saying is that contemporary music would, in fact, benefit from a more highly-controlled environment with certain expectations... just like other genres of entertainment have similar expectations when it comes to having a plot and creating drama. It's simply too difficult for any of contemporary classical to appeal to a wider audience, since it utilizes such a hodgepodge of different styles. Audiences like to know what to expect, to a certain degree. What I don't understand is why so many contemporary classical composers seem to be against having any rules or regulations whatsoever.


Because rules and regulations don't exist when it comes to music. Theoretically, Beethoven could have composed something comparable to an Elliot Carter string quartet if it was part of his musical language. People would have thought he was crazy, but there was no real RULE that said you can't do that. There were guidelines that laid out what people thought sounded good at that time, and most people adhered to those guidelines. The fact is that there are so many different guidelines throughout the ages for what music sounds good that composers must take them all into consideration when composing a piece.

Btw, MOST contemporary classical music does have something connecting it to the past. Take a look at the piece I posted in the currently listening thread, Anaklasis, by Penderecki. It sounds radical. But its structure is very much related to past music. Theres a section for just strings (A), a section for percussion (B) and a section for both of them together (C or perhaps AB). The structure of the piece is literally as simple as ABC. So really composers work within confines of traditional form all the time without people realizing it. Theres almost always something connecting a piece of contemporary classical music to the past.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> I didn't say I didn't like it. Didn't you read where I said that I'm currently trying to explore music of the past 30 years much more in-depth? All I'm saying is that contemporary music would, in fact, benefit from a more highly-controlled environment with certain expectations... just like other genres of entertainment have similar expectations when it comes to having a plot and creating drama. It's simply too difficult for any of contemporary classical to appeal to a wider audience, since it utilizes such a hodgepodge of different styles. Audiences like to know what to expect, to a certain degree. What I don't understand is why so many contemporary classical composers seem to be against having any rules or regulations whatsoever.


Actually, Ravellian, I would be interested in hearing what restrictions or limitations you yourself would put on composers. Would you suggest they stick with sonata form? Stick with tonality? Stick with acoustic instruments? Which resource would you take away from composers if you had the opportunity? I know this questions may come off as snide or sarcastic, but I'm genuinely interested to hear your answer.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

violadude said:


> Because rules and regulations don't exist when it comes to music.


That's completely incorrect. People have been composing with the aid of rules and regulations for the past thousand years, it's only been the last 50 years or so where this sort of 'anarchy' has been the norm. Of course, composers like Beethoven and Brahms and Mahler and Sibelius didn't completely stay within the confines of those rules - they bent and stretched them where they thought it would be musically appropriate. Beethoven greatly expanded the dimensions of the sonata form. Sibelius brought a completely new (but tonal) approach to sonata form. More importantly than form, in fact, is the system of tonality that is chosen. Most composers between ~1700 and 1900 composed within the tonal system, which basically a series of rules and regulations governing the hierarchy of pitches.

Stravinsky, one of the most influential of all 20th century composers, said that he became a much better composer when he began to enforce a set of rules on his composing.

This is a complex debate, and books could be written on this subject..



violadude said:


> Actually, Ravellian, I would be interested in hearing what restrictions or limitations you yourself would put on composers. Would you suggest they stick with sonata form? Stick with tonality? Stick with acoustic instruments? Which resource would you take away from composers if you had the opportunity? I know this questions may come off as snide or sarcastic, but I'm genuinely interested to hear your answer.


I'm glad you asked. 

I don't see why having the limitations of sonata form would be such a bad thing... it all boils down to an expanded ABA form, in which you have exposition, development and conflict, then resolution. It's the most profoundly efficient method of telling a musical or narrative story that exists. As far as instrumentation, I see no reason why we can't use modern electronic instruments (in fact, I have expressed interest in writing a symphony for rock band). We have several definite options for harmonic styles, but if I could I would limit harmonic approaches to either tonality, atonality or serialism. I frankly don't think Ives' sound collages or Cowell's tone clusters or Varese's "spatialism" or Cage's aleatoric music do much for the advancement of music. What's the point of tone clusters and weird percussion noises anyway? Also, let's leave improvisation to jazz, shall we? (My dislike of jazz and improvisation is a whole separate conversation)


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

violadude said:


> How so?
> 
> 10 letter requirement.


Have you ever tried to compose something meaningful without placing _any_ restrictions on yourself? You'll find it's extremely difficult.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> That's completely incorrect. People have been composing with the aid of rules and regulations for the past thousand years, it's only been the last 50 years or so where this sort of 'anarchy' has been the norm. Of course, composers like Beethoven and Brahms and Mahler and Sibelius didn't completely stay within the confines of those rules - they bent and stretched them where they thought it would be musically appropriate. Beethoven greatly expanded the dimensions of the sonata form. Sibelius brought a completely new (but tonal) approach to sonata form. More importantly than form, in fact, is the system of tonality that is chosen. Most composers between ~1700 and 1900 composed within the tonal system, which basically a series of rules and regulations governing the hierarchy of pitches.
> 
> Stravinsky, one of the most influential of all 20th century composers, said that he became a much better composer when he began to enforce a set of rules on his composing.
> 
> ...


So you're saying that every composer, from here on out, should stick to sonata form?

ok, however, say that it's around...1650 or so. Back then someone might say, hey guys, we should just stick to french overture form. Then we wouldn't have a sonata form.

And again, those are not rules, they are guidelines on how to make your music sound a certain way.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> Have you ever tried to compose something meaningful without placing _any_ restrictions on yourself? You'll find it's extremely difficult.


It's not extremely difficult, it's impossible. There will always be restrictions, either from one's own taste or because some things just aren't feasible. The 'meaningful' part is entirely subjective.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

violadude said:


> So you're saying that every composer, from here on out, should stick to sonata form?
> 
> ok, however, say that it's around...1650 or so. Back then someone might say, hey guys, we should just stick to french overture form. Then we wouldn't have a sonata form.
> 
> And again, those are not rules, they are guidelines on how to make your music sound a certain way.


Did you actually read my post?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> Did you actually read my post?


Of course I did. My point was that if composers had stuck to using the same forms for the rest of time we might have never gotten sonata form at all.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I often find [some guy's] ways of putting things kind of polarising.


I always find that the polarizing has very much preceded any comment of mine. I have been more blunt about pointing the polarization out, true. But that's very recent. (I've been accused of it for forever, of course, but I've only ever done it recently. Might as well hang for a sheep as for a lamb. No one ever noticed the lamb-like qualities, anyway.)

Improvisation is a huge part of new music making. Unfortunately for this discussion, I can't say that it's a huge part of classical music making, but that's only because the strict categories of rock, jazz, and classical have been breaking down since at least the sixties. One could argue that such and such a piece (or set) is "classical," but I don't do that anymore.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> Yes, composers of the past did compose in a variety of genres, but they all tended to follow a similar harmonic style.


Sometimes, yes, sometimes, no. There were always similarities & differences, even between contemporaries. Eg. the music of the late 1500's/early 1600's composers in Rome (Palestrina, Allegri) is quite different from those up in Venice (Monteverdi, Gabrielli). Chopin influenced Liszt, & it probably worked the other way too, but they didn't see eye to eye on many things. Berlioz absolutely loathed & was entirely different from guys like Donizetti & Rossini. Eg. I don't think old Hector composed a comic opera? I know you're arguing re a kind of tonal unity in the past, but I hear the same pluralism then as there is now, give or take a few things (eg. the invention of electricity, recording technology, better travel, etc.).



> Now composers can pick and choose from tonality, atonality, serialism, minimalism, aleatorics, spatialism (or whatever Varese called it), or something entirely different. There are seemingly no 'expectations' for a contemporary classical composer - they are free to write literally whatever they want.


Well I've been reading up on c20th classical & yes, pluralism - heaps of it - is the word here. Probably more so than in the past, but as I said above, I think there was plenty of it in the past, it was just perhaps more subtle. Here's a list I made up, based on my reading, of things in classical happening since about 1970 -

- minimalism - both pulsed & non-pulsed
- "neo" romanticism, revivalisms of various kinds
- electronic & electro-acoustic musics
- collage, allusion, assemblage
- multimedia
- concerns with environmental issues
- Non-Western "exotic" cultures
- Blending of classical with non-classical genres/styles
- Chance elements, non-determinism
- Post-minimalism
- Individual approaches to serialism
- Re-emergence of traditional forms neglected in immediate post-war years, eg. concerto, symphony, opera.

So yes, there is a lot out there (some guy could probably furnish more additions to this list). It's basically a reality now & yes it can be confusing. I personally relish this diversity/plurality, but not everyone has to.



> Am I the only one who thinks that the contemporary classical establishment would benefit from giving more restrictions to the composer? In a more highly structured, controlled environment, it would be easier to judge the value of new compositions, rather than the 'anything goes' mentality we seem to have now.


Well, it sounds like if you want more "restrictions" or traditional approaches, go for the "neo" romantics & revivalists. You'll probably be "safe" there. I'm not highly familiar with their music, as I'm not usually into this style/approach. I'm okay with it but not mad about it. Some composers in this area I have read about were Jacob Druckman, David del Tredici & George Rochberg (their music after about 1970 or so). These guys should float your boat, if you want to avoid the other trends, but others who know this area better will have to fill you in, or you can just jump on wikipedia & take it from there...


----------

