# What type of classical music is the most difficult to compose?



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

So, what do you think what type of classical music is most difficult to compose and do it right, so that end result is satisfactory?

By "type" I mean more in sense of style, like baroque vs classical vs romantic vs modern, etc... rather than genres like symphony vs opera vs concerto...

BTW I think that compositional difficulty might be a better indicator of piece's quality than how demanding it is to a listener. Though both of these indicators need not mean anything... but if I had to choose which piece is probably better, the one that's really difficult to compose, vs. the one that's really difficult to listen to and to "get it" I'd choose the former.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Good music. That's the hardest music to write. 

Well, I think it depends on what you mean by "satisfactory"... do you mean that the composer him/herself is okay with the work?

In that case I would say for me (but this will definitely vary from person to person), I find that

Easy to hard: Romantic, Classical, Baroque, Modern

However, to compose a piece that I am actually PROUD of (not just, and sometimes not even, "satisfied" with), I suppose easiest to hardest becomes

Romantic, Modern, Classical, Baroque

As a listener, I find that I am most often satisfied with contemporary composers who write in these styles:

Most to Least: Modern, Baroque, Romantic, Classical

However, I have yet to find (and I am nearly sure I will never find) a contemporary piece written in a "Baroque", "Classical", or "Romantic" style that I would characterize as being truly great.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Also, I don't think compositional difficulty is a satisfactory test of the "quality" of a piece. Really, nothing is a satisfactory test of the "quality" of a piece, since trying to describe music 100% objectively doesn't work.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Though when I think about it a bit, I see there might be 2 types of difficulty:

a) something is difficult to do because there's low probability of success (even if the effort needed is very small in cases of success)
b) something is difficult because it requires a lot of effort/work (even if success is pretty much guaranteed if you do apply effort properly)


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I don't know if it's really possible to answer a question like this. How do you define "difficult"? And what does "right" mean? I don't think difficulty of writing has one iota of influence on quality. The entire compositional process is astounding. Consider a symphonic movement: The composer gets ideas together, then (usually) makes sketches that can be simple or elaborate. Next comes the full score which can have just a handful of instruments to a huge orchestral palette. The art of orchestration alone is a mind boggling task. Then you have to add countless details of phrasing, dynamics, articulation. Just looking at it this way a Mahler-like work would seem more difficult than a Haydn symphony. And maybe that's why early composer like Bach, Haydn, Mozart and their ilk seemed to be more prolific than later composers.

Any great work takes time and for us mere mortals the process of creation seems difficult. When I study a seemingly simple work like the Dvorak 8th I am constantly surprised at the genius underlying it all. It's a staggeringly well made symphony. It was written at about the same time as Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade, a seemingly simpler work devoid of counterpoint, very stark in its melodic material, brilliantly orchestrated. And at the same time Mahler wrote his First Symphony which is far more complex than either in terms of orchestration, counterpoint, harmony...it took Mahler a lot of time to finally create it. Yet when it comes down to it, however much I like the Mahler, the Dvorak and R-K are the greater works. 

When it comes to 20th c music, the serialists in particular, it may seem "easy" because it often sounds like a bunch of random noise without thought, I'm pretty sure Berg, Webern, Carter, Boulez and crew sweated plenty hard over their music, too.

There are composers who write with great facility and don't seem troubled at all. A lot of them, such as Raff, maybe wrote too easily and without thought. Then there are some, Dukas and Chabrier, who wrote little, but giving every they had to each piece, carefully working it all out.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

One thing is certain and that is that no-one could write great Baroque, Classical or Romantic music today. They could write pastiches. They could develop modern styles that are neo-XXX. But they are going to be writing modern music.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> One thing is certain and that is that no-one could write great Baroque, Classical or Romantic music today. They could write pastiches. They could develop modern styles that are neo-XXX. But they are going to be writing modern music.


Does this apply to literature as well? Do you think it's possible to write a great realistic novel today? Using similar style and techniques as Tolstoy or Dickens, but treating contemporary issues and society, and set in today's world?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> Just looking at it this way a Mahler-like work would seem more difficult than a Haydn symphony. And maybe that's why early composer like Bach, Haydn, Mozart and their ilk seemed to be more prolific than later composers.


Shostakovich's preludes and fugues just pale in comparison with Bach's WTC. Although Mahler wrote considerably bigger in size he lacked the sense of balance like 



Compare the Sanctus double fugue of Verdi Requiem with the Kyrie of Mozart Requiem and the Jesu Christ Cum Sanctu Spiritu of C minor Mass. It's more like they had to seek alternative ways of expression cause "they just couldn't write like 'em". 
And maybe that's why many of them disliked the others' music. (ex. Tchaikovsky and Brahms) They had better resources (more advanced instruments, bigger orchestra) than their predecessors though.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

ZJovicic said:


> Does this apply to literature as well? Do you think it's possible to write a great realistic novel today? Using similar style and techniques as Tolstoy or Dickens, but treating contemporary issues and society, and set in today's world?


Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of Vanities is one of those books that was compared to Dickens when it came out. Quite a few books are. And I guess big sweeping narrative with lots of colourful characters is more than a mere style.

But I am not qualified to answer your question in the way it is intended ... except to say that music is mostly abstract whereas literature isn't.


----------



## josquindesprez (Aug 20, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> Does this apply to literature as well? Do you think it's possible to write a great realistic novel today? Using similar style and techniques as Tolstoy or Dickens, but treating contemporary issues and society, and set in today's world?


This would be a pastiche as well, if it's written in the style of Dickens or Tolstoy. Realism as a style had its moment, but a "realist" type novel written today looks different. The novel as a form matches its time (there's quite a bit of literary criticism of the novel that backs this up, though that doesn't necessarily settle the question), but an author writing in the style of Dickens or Tolstoy would be aware that they're copying that style. And if the theories of the novel are correct, then one couldn't stumble upon that style today any more than a contemporary composer could accidentally write a symphony in the style of Sibelius or whomever.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> One thing is certain and that is that no-one could write great Baroque, Classical or Romantic music today. They could write pastiches. They could develop modern styles that are neo-XXX. But they are going to be writing modern music.


That's it, exactly. When modern composers write in an older style, it somehow sounds wrong. An anachronism that just rings hollow. No one today could write say a "Tchaikovsky" symphony and actually have it sound like the master. Maybe AI will someday be able to create fake Beethoven symphony indistinguishable from the real thing, but I doubt it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I would have thought Cage's 4'33" is pretty easy to compose. In fact, I could do it myself. Piece entitled 3'12". That's done!


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

DavidA said:


> I would have thought Cage's 4'33" is pretty easy to compose. In fact, I could do it myself. Piece entitled 3'12". That's done!


Unlikely to get performed, though.....:tiphat:


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> That's it, exactly. When modern composers write in an older style, it somehow sounds wrong. An anachronism that just rings hollow. No one today could write say a "Tchaikovsky" symphony and actually have it sound like the master. Maybe AI will someday be able to create fake Beethoven symphony indistinguishable from the real thing, but I doubt it.


Agreed 100%. However, this brings up the larger (and much more important) question: what really IS "modern" music, in a stylistic sense (or if it can be many different things, what are some of them)?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

My amateurish view is that modern classical must be the easiest one to compose, because you are not that constrained by either melody, form or rythm. You can go to a wood and make a recording of birds chirping and then transcribe this atonal music into musical notation and you have a composition. Or you transcribe one of the ASMR videos. No worries with inventing good melodies, with harmony, with counterpoint etc.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ Melody is easy!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

_What type of classical music is the most difficult to compose?_

The _good_ kind.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

The most difficult to compose form of classical music is the one basically out of fashion now that has essentially been replaced worldwide by film, music theater and others: opera.

A standard opera (not operetta) runs 3 to 4 acts and 2-3 hours. It includes a full orchestra of up to 100 players, 4-8 solo singers, a chorus, staging, lighting and most important a full vocal and instrumental score lasting the whole time -- 2 to 3 hours in most cases. The composer doesn't write the choreography, staging and lighting, of course, but still this enterprise is bigger than anything else any composer is going to write. It is also the most demanding kind of performance for any player or singer.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I tried composing small scale pieces in each of baroque, classical, romantic, modern, including atonal. I think any could be done, but the results depends on the level of inspiration. I found true atonal was not as easy as I thought it would be. The techniques can be learnt for any genre.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

larold said:


> The most difficult to compose form of classical music is the one basically out of fashion now that has essentially been replaced worldwide by film, music theater and others: opera.
> 
> A standard opera (not operetta) runs 3 to 4 acts and 2-3 hours. It includes a full orchestra of up to 100 players, 4-8 solo singers, a chorus, staging, lighting and most important a full vocal and instrumental score lasting the whole time -- 2 to 3 hours in most cases. The composer doesn't write the choreography, staging and lighting, of course, but still this enterprise is bigger than anything else any composer is going to write. It is also the most demanding kind of performance for any player or singer.


Strange. I would not have said that opera is out of fashion. Opera seems to be thriving and many of today's leading composers have had successes in the opera house while their music is often said to be too challenging for a major orchestra to take to the concert hall. The size and length of more modern operas may not always be as great as the operas you are thinking of, though.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I would have thought Cage's 4'33" is pretty easy to compose. In fact, I could do it myself. Piece entitled 3'12". That's done!


Nicely done! I think I prefer your piece to 4'33" which tends to drag a little I find. Your work has effectively built on the past yet improved the structure I think.

Or how about those electroacoustic pieces that are just field recordings, I seem to remember one by Luc Ferrari that is largely just the sound of a diesel engine.

Perhaps it takes more refined ears and the true connoisseurs to really appreciate these masterworks.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I would like to comment that, in my opinion, complexity by itself doesn't necessarily mean difficulty to compose. If one is a composer with outstanding technical skills such as a Ferneyhough, it may be easier to compose an utterly difficult score that almost nobody can play, what demands only the _know how_, than to make a less complex piece that nevertheless has great and accurate expressive qualities, what may require talent and time to hone what one want to express.

This is why I can't really agree that Modern music is necessarily harder to compose than Romantic, like some previous posts suggest, although I'm the first to agree that it may be much harder to listen to.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Allerius said:


> I would like to comment that, in my opinion, complexity by itself doesn't necessarily mean difficulty to compose. If one is a composer with outstanding technical skills such as a Ferneyhough, it may be easier to compose an utterly difficult score that almost nobody can play, what demands only the _know how_, than to make a less complex piece that nevertheless has great and accurate expressive qualities, what may require talent and time to hone what one want to express.
> 
> This is why I can't really agree that Modernism is necessarily harder to compose than Romanticism, like some previous posts suggest, although I'm the first to agree that it may be much harder to listen to.


This reminds of Mark Twain: I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.


----------

