# Can I become beethoven?



## itsik

Hi there!

My name is Itsik and I am an "Hobby" composer.
I realy want to become a professional one.
Please listen to my Violin and Piano sonata on Youtube and reply with comments.
I will deeply consider yours comments to improve my music.

Links to Youtube:
Violin and Piano Sonata Part 1 - I am not Beethoven, Yet...:





Violin and Piano Sonata Part 2 - I am not Beethoven, Yet...:





I will most appreciate yours efforts,

Regards, Itsik.


----------



## brianvds

> Can I become beethoven?


No, but there is no shame in that. 

Your sonata is very nice. It actually reminds a bit of Beethoven's style. Are you self-taught? Tell us a bit more about yourself and your musical world.


----------



## norman bates

itsik said:


> Hi there!
> 
> My name is Itsik and I am an "Hobby" composer.
> I realy want to become a professional one.
> Please listen to my Violin and Piano sonata on Youtube and reply with comments.
> I will deeply consider yours comments to improve my music.
> 
> Links to Youtube:
> Violin and Piano Sonata Part 1 - I am not Beethoven, Yet...:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violin and Piano Sonata Part 2 - I am not Beethoven, Yet...:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will most appreciate yours efforts,
> 
> Regards, Itsik.


The difference between you and Beethoven is that it seems to me that you're trying to emulate him while he was trying to create something original. I don't think that Beethoven today would have composed the same music he wrote in the nineteen century. After all, one of the last pieces of him was the grosse fugue that was very ahead of its time, that say a lot about his attitude.


----------



## badRomance

norman bates said:


> The difference between you and Beethoven is that it seems to me that you're trying to emulate him while he was trying to create something original.


Everyone starts with emulation. Even Beethoven ... he wasn't born and raised in a vacuum.


----------



## Guest

[Edit: I see that while I was dawdling around with my post, norman already basically said what I was working on. Oh well. Let it stand, redundant though mine is, now.]

Well, there's at least one significant difference between you and Beethoven. When he started out, he too imitated music from other composers. In his case, however, he imitated music from his present.

You are imitating music from Beethoven's past.

If you want to emulate Beethoven, better to do so by emulating what he did as a novice composer, not by trying to reproduce music from Beethoven's time or earlier.

If Beethoven had done as you are doing, he would have started out imitating someone like Palestrina or Lassus. Instead, he started out imitating Mozart and Haydn. Contemporaries of his, though he was only in his early twenties when Mozart died. Still. Music of his present or his immediate past, not something from centuries before.

To imitate Beethoven in his manner of operation (rather than in any sounds that he may have made), you would be imitating Helmut Lachenmann or Francis Dhomont or Pauline Oliveros. Or perhaps Lionel Marchetti or Emmanuelle Gibello.


----------



## itsik

Thank you for your reply.
Actually, I learned basic composition (Harmonic & Counterpoint) When I was young. Not enough to compose that kind of sonata. 
So... I analyzed some Mozart/Beethoven Sonatas before I composed mine. Therefore, Yes, I can tell I self-taught.

I worked at the Hi-tech industry. That why I do not have enough time to compose music.
My actuall topic question Is: Can I become professional ? Or Can I quit the Hi-tech and lived from my music?


----------



## Aramis

some guy said:


> To imitate Beethoven in his manner of operation (rather than in any sounds that he may have made), you would be imitating Helmut Lachenmann or Francis Dhomont or Pauline Oliveros. Or perhaps Lionel Marchetti or Emmanuelle Gibello.


Itsik, I know that what he tells you is so painful but take heart, there is a way to skip that part:

1) Go listen some Steven O'Brien, resident composer of this forum
2) He is contemporary, some would say still a kid, who imitates Beethoven and Mozart
3) Imitate Steven O'Brien

Voila! You're drawing your inspiration from fresh, contemporary source and there is no need to sound awful. Or you don't even need to do that, just when somebody tells you that your music imitates Beethoven, say: "man, what do you know about modern trends... I'm with the young generation, I'm inspired by Steven O'Brien! Ever heard of him? No? Again, what do you know, catch up with your time..."


----------



## EdwardBast

Sorry to be mundane and practical, but that whole first piece is in 6/8 and should be rewritten in that meter instead of screwing around with triplets. 

Norman and some guy pretty much said what I am thinking on broader stylistic issues, though I would not say you should be imitating Oliveros or Lachenmann et alia. However, you probably should be trying to at least master the tonal harmony and counterpoint of the twentieth century.


----------



## Blake

Listen to what you like, and play what you like. As I said before, it's more important to be genuine than original.


----------



## Aramis

Listen to what you like, and play what you like. As I said before, it's more important to be genuine than original.


----------



## Guest

Also, you may find in practice that "genuine" and "original" are not mutually exclusive categories.

More like synonyms.

(And Beethoven never imitated anyone from his time who was imitating Lassus. Partly because there was no such person. That kind of activity didn't start happening until the nineteenth century.)


----------



## KenOC

some guy said:


> Also, you may find in practice that "genuine" and "original" are not mutually exclusive categories.
> More like synonyms.


A thought-provoking statement, for sure.


----------



## Mahlerian

My impression is that you have a good deal of technical ability. But you should work on finding an original voice, rather than simply imitating Beethoven. The best response you'll get if you continue to want to _be_ Beethoven is "that sounds remarkably like Beethoven!" But that never gets you much of anywhere, because the person who says that is really enjoying Beethoven's music through yours rather than your own music in itself.

The first movement seems stronger than the second, and within the first, your development section doesn't have the drive or inevitability that you want. The second movement (a theme and variations, right?) sounds less like Beethoven overall, I feel, and almost not like Classical-era music at all in places.


----------



## Blake

some guy said:


> Also, you may find in practice that "genuine" and "original" are not mutually exclusive categories.


Of course not. Originality comes from the very act of a genuine expression. It won't come forced, and if it appears to, it'll be as dry as the Sahara.


----------



## Marx

itsik said:


> Hi there!
> 
> My name is Itsik and I am an "Hobby" composer.
> I realy want to become a professional one.
> Please listen to my Violin and Piano sonata on Youtube and reply with comments.
> I will deeply consider yours comments to improve my music.
> 
> Links to Youtube:
> Violin and Piano Sonata Part 1 - I am not Beethoven, Yet...:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violin and Piano Sonata Part 2 - I am not Beethoven, Yet...:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will most appreciate yours efforts,
> 
> Regards, Itsik.


Itsik do not listen to the comments above me given by people who possess a mere fraction of your compositional ability for they are rooted in jealously. You have a measurable talent many people on this forum do not have and for this reason they will not seek to give constructive advice that you deserve. I commend your efforts. Both of your pieces are exceptional for a relatively new composer. How long did it take you to produce such masterpieces?

If you want to copy Beethoven then do so. I trust this trend will tire and you will branch out and develop your own style in time.


----------



## Flamme

YES YOU CAN. Just believe in yourself.


----------



## norman bates

Marx said:


> Itsik do not listen to the comments above me given by people who possess a mere fraction of your compositional ability for they are rooted in jealously. You have a measurable talent many people on this forum do not have
> and for this reason they will not seek to give constructive advice that you deserve. I commend your efforts. Both of your pieces are exceptional for a relatively new composer. How long did it take you to produce such masterpieces?
> 
> If you want to copy Beethoven then do so. I trust this trend will tire and you will branch out and develop your own style in time.


the thing of the "jealously" make me laugh every time (especially if it is said by a person with just 1 post who's talking as he knows everyone and everyone's talent on this board), but the funny thing is that I don't see any comment that says something dismissive on his ability, so basically you're saying the same thing that everybody else has already said.


----------



## Blake

Marx said:


> Itsik do not listen to the comments above me given by people who possess a mere fraction of your compositional ability for they are rooted in jealously. You have a measurable talent many people on this forum do not have and for this reason they will not seek to give constructive advice that you deserve. I commend your efforts. Both of your pieces are exceptional for a relatively new composer. How long did it take you to produce such masterpieces?
> 
> If you want to copy Beethoven then do so. I trust this trend will tire and you will branch out and develop your own style in time.


What do you know of anyone in here? You need to handle your security issues, friend.


----------



## Guest

[Edit: Now both Norman AND Vesuvius are making me redundant. Maybe I should learn to type faster? Well, here's what I had. That is now redundant.]

Marx, you speak as if you know how much compositional ability each of us has. And as if you know our inner mental states. I don't think that you do, actually.



Vesuvius said:


> ...as dry as the Sahara.


You say that as if that were a bad thing.

But seriously, I'm not sure about that "forced" thing you mention. It's problematic. Any kind of learning can be seen as being "forced." But of course, learning involves doing things that you might not already "like." (Another reason I started that thread about getting beyond likes and dislikes, you know.) But I'm not sure that "forced" is even germane to this conversation. Perhaps the real problem is with "genuine," though. What is genuine? That's the million dollar question for sure.

And if we ever get a handle on that concept, we immediately have to deal with that "expression" thing. Heaping Pelion upon Ossa. Still. If it has to be done, I guess we should get on with it....


----------



## Blake

some guy said:


> You say that as if that were a bad thing.
> 
> But seriously, I'm not sure about that "forced" thing you mention. It's problematic. Any kind of learning can be seen as being "forced." But of course, learning involves doing things that you might not already "like." (Another reason I started that thread about getting beyond likes and dislikes, you know.) But I'm not sure that "forced" is even germane to this conversation. Perhaps the real problem is with "genuine," though. What is genuine? That's the million dollar question for sure.
> 
> And if we ever get a handle on that concept, we immediately have to deal with that "expression" thing. Heaping Pelion upon Ossa. Still. If it has to be done, I guess we should get on with it....


In this case, we can rip every word apart as all language is a concoction of made up terms to quantify things... normally unfruitfully, I'll add. But, we try.


What I'm getting at is to stay in the heart, and don't let the "personal" ideas of trying to be unique or individual detract you from really making a profound statement. Don't worry about being original. What comes, comes.

By the way, Itsik, you've got talent... keep it up. :tiphat:


----------



## mstar

One can become like Beethoven, though I suggest you work towards your own style. One may still incorporate elements of music in their works that may be connected with Beethoven.


----------



## KenOC

I enjoyed the movements you posted, although I might prefer more contrast between theme groups, more "surprises" among the continuing busy passages. Listen to the sudden stops in Haydn and Beethoven allegros..infuriating but effective.

In any event, I think that for a composer to ask, "How can I become Beethoven?" is like a playwright asking, "How can I become Shakespeare?" No matter how talented you are, if you're starting with the early Beethoven style, where is the musical culture to meaningfully criticize and advise, to support and appreciate your work as you develop? It's all two centuries in the past.

Maybe the better question is, "How can I understand my own best self and values, and express these musically in a way that will make people in today's world sit up and notice?" In fact, it may not even be something people around here will recognize as "classical music"!


----------



## hpowders

Can I become Einstein? Of course not! The greatest geniuses cannot be emulated. Just be glad they existed.


----------



## Flamme

Guys you will crush this poor chap's spirit!


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> Originality comes from the very act of a genuine expression.


LOL. As phrased, sorry, but _Originality and "Genuine Expression" *are NOT Mutually inclusive.*_


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> LOL. As phrased, sorry, but _Originality and "Genuine Expression" *are NOT Mutually inclusive.*_


That's quite alright if you see it differently. I don't see the point in laughing like a baboon, though.


----------



## Mahlerian

Flamme said:


> Guys you will crush this poor chap's spirit!


I would think that "No, you can't be Beethoven, but you can be yourself" would be anything but disheartening.


----------



## Yardrax

I don't understand why the question of imitation is an either/or one. Bruckner was influenced by the older vocal music of Palestrina and the then modern symphonic music of Wagner. Webern was equally a student of renaissance polyphony and dodecaphony. 

In fact Beethoven himself was taught composition by Haydn from Fux's Gradus, which teaches Palestrina style counterpoint. He was certainly not ignorant of the older composers.

I do agree that student composers should be dissuaded from having 'writing like X composer' as their ultimate goal. But that doesn't mean that writing like X composer to start with is a bad thing, babies learn to talk at first from watching and imitating their parents.


----------



## hpowders

It's like stating "I want to be a supreme genius" when in reality I am an average mortal. It's just not happening.


----------



## Guest

I'd like to see you pick up where Beethoven left off. I'd like a Beethoven 10 more than 2 Beethoven 1's


----------



## hpowders

Should be no problem.


----------



## brianvds

Vesuvius said:


> Of course not. Originality comes from the very act of a genuine expression. It won't come forced, and if it appears to, it'll be as dry as the Sahara.


I tend to agree with this. Urging originality is like urging someone to develop his own unique handwriting. It is unnecessary; in fact, it is almost impossible not to be original. Very talented composers will develop their own unique handwriting in time. Not so talented ones will not get very far anyway, whether they imitate Beethoven or try to be original.

As for imitating Beethoven, I am no expert, but as far as I know to this day it is pretty much standard practice for university students of music to learn to compose in high classical style before they become budding Stockhausens. It is an apprenticeship that will serve them well for the entire rest of their careers, whatever style of music they are going to go into. It seems to me that in both visual art and music, we have become completely obsessed with originality at the cost of a solid technical foundation. In this particular case, the OP states that he is mostly self-taught, i.e. he is putting himself through an apprenticeship. Thus far it sounds pretty good to me.

Now the OP has an added problem in that he wants to become a professional composer. My advice would be: don't. It's a pretty harsh and competitive world and may well turn music from a pleasure into a punishment. Of course, for some people the urge to create is powerful that they will ignore such advice. But understand well that you may be setting yourself up for a lifetime of zero recognition and constant financial problems.

Also keep in mind that there are many ways of making a living as professional composer working in a broadly classical sort of style. One way is to follow the advice of some people and push originality at all costs, thus becoming yet another controversial avant gardist. I'm not sure how one makes an honest living out of that though.

Another way is compose music that people actually want to listen to, including, for example, music for film and documentary soundtracks. For that kind of music, taking Beethoven and his 19th century successors as your model seems to me like a very good idea. But of course, for that sort of music you may well find some musical idiot telling you to repeat that pretty melody or "could you make it less dramatic" or whatever. Still, a professional composer is someone who earns a living through it, and seeing as earning a living means other people pay for your work, you have to take into account what other people want to hear. Figures as illustrious as Bach, Mozart and Shostakovich did this and it didn't prevent them from achieving greatness.


----------



## PetrB

If you want to fill his shoes, and not write imitative old style music, then you will have to be au courant with the music of now, and push that envelope to near breaking. That is the only thing that might bring some historic comparison with any composer and Beethoven.

Sorry, part time is not enough to become professional, whether it is more genre / derivative like film or video game scores, or really fresh and fresher contemporary classical music. 

Worldwide, there are only a very small handful of full-time composers making living solely from their works, commissions, performance fees and recording royalties. Most of the other (well-known) still teach to make ends meet. They do not have a second unrelated job, though.

Career more than implies that any secondary interests are 'hobbies.' Ergo, now you have a career and music is your hobby.
I doubt if there is a safety-net plan where you could dedicate what you need to become a professional composer and quit that other job, the irony being you need to 'not work' full time in order to dedicate enough to music, study, practice, to become a pro.


----------



## hreichgott

Having a hero to look up to is very inspiring. Last year I heard Richard Goode in concert and it changed the way I thought about piano playing. The man is a symphony orchestra. It keeps me up at night, trying to figure out how I can play like Richard Goode. Do I really think I can play like Richard Goode? Not really, but if I wasted energy being so overly modest as never to try, then I would learn nothing. Do I really want to be a Richard Goode imitation? Well, maybe not, although there are worse things to be. But if I stopped listening and analyzing then I wouldn't learn anything from him at all.

Weren't all of us musicians once inspired by a brilliant hero? The truth is, none of us has ever heard the best we can possibly be, because it hasn't happened yet. Maybe all we can do is listen to the best we can find of other people, imitating at first, until gradually we start to find our way.

I'll edit this when I've actually listened to the pieces 

Mvt 1: Wow, Beethoven has taught you well. Either you've got additional musical training you aren't telling us about, or else you are just a very attentive Beethoven student. You've got a good sense of sonata form. And thematic development, which shows you're quite creative. I must be honest that I did not find the musical themes themselves to be very interesting, BUT, I loved hearing what you did with them, and crucially I think you really did use the dramatic arc of sonata form to its full extent. By the recap I felt that we'd been somewhere, not just that we'd played a few little games with modulations. Instrumentation: You use these instruments very well, do you play either or both of them? They have a relationship similar to that in the Beethoven violin sonatas. It's a complete ensemble and nothing is redundant. Someone else will have to weigh in on the violin part. The piano writing looks to be at a courteous difficulty level, nothing excessive. Things to work on: You might find more outlets for your creativity by not focusing so much on chord structures when building melodies. Maybe singing into a tape recorder away from the piano or something would help. I felt you rather overused arpeggiation in the piano part. At times it was a little like busy work. The exposition spent too long on C minor and G7. Check in with our friend Beethoven's expositions and notice how he uses keys as a palette of many colors and is not afraid to depart from the home key for more than 2 measures, even in expositions.

Mvt 2: I can't be as complimentary here as about the 1st movement. There is much more in the way of dithering back and forth between the same couple of chords and not as much dramatic or melodic interest to hold it together. You've fallen into the trap, with a theme and variations, of deciding on an idea for a variation and then applying the same idea measure after measure. Again Beethoven is a good example of creative variations. There are always surprises... it isn't just that he copies the theme with 2 extra sixteenth notes or something. Instrumentation: Once again you use the ensemble effectively and I still think there's more going on here than a simple untrained hobbyist. For the piano the 4-note repeating chords in 32nd notes near m. 80 may be too rapid for the piano's repeating mechanism. You could make it a tremolo or alternate between inner and outer notes as Beethoven does to solve this problem in Appassionata 3rd mvt. left hand, quite difficult to play of course, but mechanically possible. In all I felt this movement was a great compositional exercise but not in the same league as the first.


----------



## KenOC

hreichgott said:


> Last year I heard Richard Goode in concert and it changed the way I thought about piano playing.


Great to see Goode getting some love here. I've admired his playing since the LP days, when I got his late Beethoven sonatas on LP. I seem to remember that his entire set of sonatas were in limbo for a few years after Reader's Digest (!) promised to publish them and then had a change in corporate philosophy. Later, he was my intro to the Schubert sonatas. Thanks Richard!


----------



## brianvds

PetrB said:


> If you want to fill his shoes, and not write imitative old style music, then you will have to be au courant with the music of now, and push that envelope to near breaking. That is the only thing that might bring some historic comparison with any composer and Beethoven.


The problem is that today, there is nothing left of the envelope, so there's nothing left to push. It has been pushed to breaking point decades ago. My advice to budding composers is this: compose what you like. There is nowadays a potential market for almost anything.



> Sorry, part time is not enough to become professional, whether it is more genre / derivative like film or video game scores, or really fresh and fresher contemporary classical music.
> 
> Worldwide, there are only a very small handful of full-time composers making living solely from their works, commissions, performance fees and recording royalties. Most of the other (well-known) still teach to make ends meet. They do not have a second unrelated job, though.


Yup, the only exception to the above that comes to mind is Charles Ives, and if memory serves even he only really got into music after his retirement. Ideally, your day job should ALSO be music, either as performer or as teacher. In this regard, Mahler comes to mind. This will be very difficult to achieve if you are entirely self taught. Might be a good idea to get some formal qualification in music that will enable you to become, for example, a piano teacher. Such a solid job will also free you from the need to make money from your composition, and if you then want to spend an entire lifetime imitating Beethoven, you will be free to do so.

As I said before, if you want to be a professional composer you'll have to make money out of it, and getting modern orchestras to perform music written as concert pieces (rather than soundtracks) in 19th century style is more or less impossible, no matter how beautiful the music may be. I'm by no means saying that I agree with this! But it is what it is.

On the positive side, I think the web has to some extent begun to release the iron grip on music that the big music companies and orchestras had. Anyone can now put his work on YouTube (or wherever). It is ever easier to get hold of some pretty good digital music software that, while by no means a "real" orchestra, can do much better at realizing a score than any MIDI file. In many ways, modern composers are simply no longer at the mercy of performers or orchestras or record companies or patrons.

At least in pop music, quite a number of very big guns were discovered on YouTube; I see no reason why this could not happen in classical music.


----------



## Mahlerian

brianvds said:


> The problem is that today, there is nothing left of the envelope, so there's nothing left to push. It has been pushed to breaking point decades ago. My advice to budding composers is this: compose what you like. There is nowadays a potential market for almost anything.


The revolutions that are left are always ones that nobody can see coming before they happen. I am confident that music will continue to change and grow.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> The revolutions that are left are always ones that nobody can see coming before they happen.


Perhaps we're already living in the time of Beethoven, but talking only about Gluck. Ya think?


----------



## Blake

Mahlerian said:


> The revolutions that are left are always ones that nobody can see coming before they happen. I am confident that music will continue to change and grow.


Music definitely will continue to evolve, but I'm not sure there's anything left for the classical style. That's why we keep going back to composers centuries ago, because they've stretched that particular structure for what it can bear. There have been great recent composers, but I really can't name any in the past century that have been as profound as Josquin, Palestrina, Beethoven, Handel, or Mozart.


----------



## Guest

I agree that every possible classical innovation hasn't been made; however, it seems that after a certain point (applicable to other genres as well), the remaining possibilities for innovation just make the music more "weird". Sure composers are doing new things, but my "limited" mind simply can't see value in Norgard or Saariaho or whoever that matches the (to echo Vesuvius) profound nature of the past styles.


----------



## brianvds

Mahlerian said:


> The revolutions that are left are always ones that nobody can see coming before they happen. I am confident that music will continue to change and grow.


I have no doubt that it will continue change, and perhaps grow too, depending on what exactly we mean by that. But traditionally, pushing the envelope meant a push toward chromaticism. Schoenberg took the final step there a century ago. 

Since then, there have in fact been several very noteworthy, original and worthwhile trends; neoclassicism comes to mind, and that was only one such trend. It was so successful that many contemporary composers still compose in the style. But I'm not sure anything nowadays can ever really be compared to the kind of revolutions wrought by Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy or Schoenberg.

Neither do I think it is necessary. Perhaps I am just old-fashioned, but I completely and utterly reject the very notion of originality for its own sake. We have seen way too much of that, if you ask me. I think composers should be primarily guided by their personal aesthetic, and then let the commercial dice roll where they will.


----------



## Mahlerian

brianvds said:


> Neither do I think it is necessary. perhaps I am just old-fashioned, but I completely and utterly reject the very notion of originality for its own sake.


So do I! We have a lot in common, see?



brianvds said:


> But traditionally, pushing the envelope meant a push toward chromaticism. Schoenberg took the final step there a century ago.


Norgard and Saariaho were mentioned. Ligeti also made use of microtones. I'm not even sure there's even a need for that. There are so many possibilities with the 12 tones normally used that I don't know if microtonal writing will ever be seen as a necessary step for originality.

And that's not even getting into the exploration of alternate tunings.


----------



## brianvds

Looks like Mahlerian and I are in broad agreement. I would add one thing here: apart from a few lucky heavyweights from academia, commercial success in music, whether you write songs for Justin Bieber or symphonies in the style of Beethoven, depends heavily on an ability to create catchy melodies.


----------



## PetrB

The piece, btw, is 'entertaining, though after a while the relentless clock-like sense of the playback and that "pardon me, but is that supposed to be a violin" sample took its toll.

More so, the phrase lengths are exactly the same, no extensions, no variance -- that gets deadening even to those who do not know to say it.

But this is well-done enough, for 'model' exercise, and now it is time to go on to the next model in the historic sequence. (you should have also been doing baroque model writing, counterpoint, etc. This is a 'classic' study regime, and progression, for those wishing to learn to compose: from earliest chant through the various eras of harmonic development, you build upon the progression of the past as it happened, coming up to the present via the 20th century.

But as far as a fun enough piece, do not expect the world to come knocking on your doors asking for a score because you wrote something somewhat in the style of Beethoven -- because what it does not have, which Beethoven's music does (even in his earlier more 'classical' style) is the surprises, the unexpected turn of harmony or phrase. That 'unexpected' is what makes Beethoven Beethoven, and most of the other great composers 'great.' Your very adept student-like piece is bare of any of those surprises, odd twists -- it is more 'generic' than genuine.


----------



## aleazk

I see... the death of classical music... again... 

Yawn.


----------



## Blake

Someone contributing nothing but a smug topic-complaint... Yawn.


----------



## aleazk

Mahlerian said:


> So do I! We have a lot in common, see?
> 
> Norgard and Saariaho were mentioned. Ligeti also made use of microtones. I'm not even sure there's even a need for that. There are so many possibilities with the 12 tones normally used that I don't know if microtonal writing will ever be seen as a necessary step for originality.
> 
> And that's not even getting into the exploration of alternate tunings.


It's a necessity depending on what do you want to compose and your conception of the role of sound. In a more occidental conception, what's more important is the pitch as building block and the structures you can construct using them. In that sense, a scale of 12 tones is more than enough.
But in this conception, the actual _sound_ and its intrinsic properties are not the most important things.
In spectralism, for example, the sound and its properties, its different details, are the most important things.
Microtones are essential here because they allow you to enter in new realms of sound and texture which are not achievable using the discrete 12 tone chromatic scale.


----------



## PetrB

Yardrax said:


> I don't understand why the question of imitation is an either/or one. Bruckner was influenced by the older vocal music of Palestrina and the then modern symphonic music of Wagner. Webern was equally a student of renaissance polyphony and dodecaphony.
> 
> In fact Beethoven himself was taught composition by Haydn from Fux's Gradus, which teaches Palestrina style counterpoint. He was certainly not ignorant of the older composers.
> 
> I do agree that student composers should be dissuaded from having 'writing like X composer' as their ultimate goal. But that doesn't mean that writing like X composer to start with is a bad thing, babies learn to talk at first from watching and imitating their parents.


Exactly. "model" writing is no newer than the second generation of composers, so to speak.

BUT: student and early stage composers never used to think that their model writing was the end-all and be all, no matter how (rightly) excited they were to write 'something that worked.' This seems to have shifted, along with the proliferation of software and midi readily available to nearly all, to 'Baroque Concerti' by the box-car load, etc. etc.

Of course, when young, heady with unrealized ego and all the rest, my student peers and I did not have the internet, or the now available electronica and software, to 'share' our final essay in counterpoint 101, for example. (I cringe to think of unleashing upon the world my very cool written for class 18th century counterpoint two-part invention: yes, it sounded rather like if not Bach, north German counterpoint of that sort. *To most of us, it was merely a means to an end, knowing there was no other use to 'writing like Bach'* 

I would like all those working in isolation, the self-taught, the on their owns, to tour music schools, specifically, those classes where everyone hears the model exercises performed -- perhaps then, confronted with a roomful of people all writing similarly, some better than others, the gloss of having been 'so unique as to write somewhat like Beethoven' would quickly lose its sheen. For the romantic period, in harmony class, that quarter's bit of comping was 'romantic style.' I composed, I am told, a piece almost worthy of Mahler. It was at least very 'Mahler-like,' the prof saying it was 'ultra-chromatic' as well. Done... and on to the next, that is what the model writing is all about, or "should be."

Apollo only knows if the availability of these newer computer and electronic tools / toys has also unleashed the ego / publicity / public recognition beast in every young or self-taught wannabe


----------



## tdc

brianvds said:


> Yup, the only exception to the above that comes to mind is Charles Ives.


There was also Borodin who in addition to being a composer was a doctor and a chemist.


----------



## science

I think I read all the posts but I did skim a few so if I missed someone making my point, I apologize! 

No one can become anything like Beethoven today because innovative composers do not occupy the kind of cultural space they did in the nineteenth century. "Classical music" in that sense has been "dead" since the first World War and "buried" since the second. 

You might be able to make a popular youtube channel, though. Beethoven never had that opportunity.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> There was also Borodin who in addition to being a composer was a doctor and a chemist.


I can't find that Borodin was ever a doctor, though "In 1858, he graduated as a Doctor of Medicine, after completing a thesis on acids." A very nice page on him here:

http://www.myhero.com/go/hero.asp?hero=Alexander_Borodin_06


----------



## tdc

KenOC said:


> I can't find that Borodin was ever a doctor, though "In 1858, he graduated as a Doctor of Medicine, after completing a thesis on acids." A very nice page on him here:
> 
> http://www.myhero.com/go/hero.asp?hero=Alexander_Borodin_06


Thanks for the link. I'm not sure if he was a practicing doctor or not but from wiki:

"Borodin...was a Russian Romantic composer, doctor and chemist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Borodin


----------



## hreichgott

The great composers of the past also cobbled together a living from several different musical pursuits: teaching, directing orchestras for dukes or cathedral choirs, being a church organist. Mozart was a full-time touring composer-performer but he was chronically short of funds and could not exactly be said to have made a living.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> Thanks for the link. I'm not sure if he was a practicing doctor or not but from wiki: "Borodin...was a Russian Romantic composer, doctor and chemist.


Yeah, I saw that. But I was looking for backup, and couldn't really find it. Possibly just referring to his degree? In fact, though, his work with aldehydes was considered the standard well into the 20th century.


----------



## brianvds

PetrB said:


> The piece, btw, is 'entertaining, though after a while the relentless clock-like sense of the playback and that "pardon me, but is that supposed to be a violin" sample took its toll.


Yes, unfortunately with MIDI files, after a while it becomes difficult to listen past the tinny MIDI sound. There are nowadays far more sophisticated ways to create digital realizations of music. On a classical music mailing list, I once heard preludes and fugues from Bach's WTC that were not only more or less indistinguishable from anything done on a "real" piano, but were pretty brilliant as well, and it was not just my amateur ear that thought so - there was general consensus on this among professional musicians there. But these recordings were made without the performer once touching a keyboard.

However, learning to use music software at that level is apparently quite a bit of a learning curve in itself, and it takes ages because every note has to be individually sculpted.



> More so, the phrase lengths are exactly the same, no extensions, no variance -- that gets deadening even to those who do not know to say it.


Yes, my feeling was also that the first movement was a bit too long. But I think the piece speaks of solid enough talent to allow for a professional career. It's just that with this sort of music, you will never make enough money to live on it.



> That 'unexpected' is what makes Beethoven Beethoven, and most of the other great composers 'great.' Your very adept student-like piece is bare of any of those surprises, odd twists -- it is more 'generic' than genuine.


Indeed, and one should hasten to add that one can achieve this unexpected aspect without having to break new ground in harmony or tonality or self-conscious pushing of the envelope. I will further contend that, as with composing attractive melodies, it is one skill that cannot really be learned. Beethoven did not become Beethoven by advanced study of avant garde music theory, or by Haydn and Salieri extorting him to be more original. If anything, they did exactly the opposite. A solid foundation in theory is, I would think, absolutely necessary for success in classical music, but does not guarantee it. Salieri knew every bit as much theory as Beethoven or Mozart ever did; it did him no good in his quest for eternal greatness (if he ever actually harboured any such ambition!), though it certainly did not harm his career as professional teacher and composer.

It is for this reason that I am extremely skeptical of advice that encourages students to "be more original." You cannot really make that happen. Built on a solid technical foundation, it will happen by itself or not. Or perhaps more accurately, anyone can be more original, but there is a big difference between being original, and being original in a truly interesting or great way. I am not convinced that the latter can be taught in a formal sort of way.

It may be very instructive though to closely study the scores of other composers (as the OP seems to have done already) because it will teach the student how great composers went about being original, and also what kind of things have already been done.

It should of course also be noted that the vast majority of perfectly respectable professional composers who ever lived, were not particularly original. It may have prevented them from entering the standard repertoire, but it did not prevent them from being successful professionals.

Thus my advice to the OP should perhaps be not to try being the next Beethoven, in the sense of becoming the next groundbreaking titan. You are almost certainly setting yourself up for failure that way. If it merely your desire to compose in the style of Beethoven, well, as others have pointed out, perfectly average composition students can do that nowadays. Your chances of making a living out of it are slim though.



tdc said:


> There was also Borodin who in addition to being a composer was a doctor and a chemist.


Ah yes, how could I forget? I don't know if Ives was a particularly great insurance man, but by all accounts Borodin was actually a pretty great scientist; it was by no means just a day job for him.

Perhaps lepidopterists bemoan the fact that Saint-Saëns wasted away his great entomological talent while slugging away in a day job that consisted of mere music. If only he realized where his true talents lay!


----------



## KenOC

brianvds said:


> I don't know if Ives was a particularly great insurance man...


As I understand it, Ives pretty much pioneered the use of insurance in estate planning. May not sound like much, but it you're an insurance guy, you may well want to genuflect a bit.


----------



## brianvds

hreichgott said:


> The great composers of the past also cobbled together a living from several different musical pursuits: teaching, directing orchestras for dukes or cathedral choirs, being a church organist. Mozart was a full-time touring composer-performer but he was chronically short of funds and could not exactly be said to have made a living.


As far as I know, Mozart's supposed poverty has been greatly exaggerated, not least by Mozart himself. But your point is perfectly valid: lots of composers make their living out of more than composition. What is pretty unusual is for great composers to work professionally in fields outside of music and compose only part-time. We have thus far listed only two of note, and off the top of my head I cannot think of any others.


----------



## brianvds

KenOC said:


> As I understand it, Ives pretty much pioneered the use of insurance in estate planning. May not sound like much, but it you're an insurance guy, you may well want to genuflect a bit.


I don't know a thing about insurance - I'll take Mr. Ives' word for it.

I confess, I have never actually heard a single piece of his music either.


----------



## tdc

brianvds said:


> I don't know a thing about insurance - I'll take Mr. Ives' word for it.


Ives had a remarkably successful career in insurance, he formed his own agency and thought up creative ways to structure life-insurance packages, which laid the foundation of the modern practice of estate planning, while simultaneously continuing to be a prolific composer until his death.



brianvds said:


> I confess, I have never actually heard a single piece of his music either.


----------



## Guest

Deleted post. Real post follows. Apologies all.


----------



## Guest

Mistake number two. You'll see why shortly.

Copy and paste is too complicated for me.


----------



## Guest

Vesuvius said:


> In this case, we can rip every word apart as all language is a concoction of made up terms to quantify things... normally unfruitfully, I'll add. But, we try.


But that's not what I was doing. I was trying to inject some specificity into the vague wash of generalities.



Vesuvius said:


> What I'm getting at is to stay in the heart....


What does this mean?



Vesuvius said:


> don't let the "personal" ideas of trying to be unique or individual detract you from really making a profound statement. Don't worry about being original. What comes, comes.


Well? Is he supposed to worry or not? Relax, but be profound. ??



brianvds said:


> Another way is compose music that people actually want to listen to....


How is it that a subgroup of the category "people" gets to be taken as the whole category, excluding the other people? Sounds racist to me. But really, brian, I'm a person, and I actually want to listen to Karkowski and Amacher and Merzbow.



brianvds said:


> The problem is that today, there is nothing left of the envelope, so there's nothing left to push.


Actually, the problem is that the commentary about new music hasn't changed for over two hundred years. Aside from the metaphor you used, this is very much like the criticism of Mozart compared to the superior Boccherini. Boccherini had already done everything good in music that could be done, leaving Mozart only an arid wasteland to till.

Update the commentary, for sure!!



brianvds said:


> Charles Ives, and if memory serves even he only really got into music after his retirement


Nope. Ives had been composing long before he became an insurance executive. And he had to retire from both after some massive heart attacks.



Vesuvius said:


> There have been great recent composers, but I really can't name any in the past century that have been as profound as Josquin, Palestrina, Beethoven, Handel, or Mozart.


Of course not. The past century is not past enough for its composers to have achieved the patina of profundity. And so what if they haven't? I've an idea. Listen to music. Dinna fash about whether it's "great" or "profound" or not. Enjoy it for what it is. Let your grandchildren's grandchildren (who you will never meet, just by the way) worry about profundity. Unless they come up with something better to do.:lol:

There. Now this is what I've been working on all these minutes. Well, it's another four hours until my plane leaves. Now what else can I do to spend time?


----------



## ArtMusic

I wouldn't want to be like Beethoven - deaf, weeee in pants, died of cirrhosis or liver/who knows what else, no women in life ...

But of course, the greatest composer ever - but not actually a life that many would want to have other than his artistic genius.


----------



## violadude

I'll be honest, I was expecting your music to be pretty awful just because most "hobby" composers trying to be like X composer just don't have the basics down well enough to even come close to their goal. 

However, while I agree that it is quite derivative and I would encourage you to move beyond the realm of pure imitation, I actually enjoyed the piece for what it was.

Also, I'm probably being way too pedantic, but just as a side note if you are trying to get your music to sound EXACTLY like Beethoven's, you're going to have to tone down the modulations just a tad. For example, in the slow movement, you move to e-flat minor near the very beginning. If you look at Beethoven's music closely though, throughout most of his life he still stuck pretty strictly to the whole "exposition only establishes the Tonic and Dominant" formula, despite some chromaticism that might mask that fact. It's one of the reasons he's still considered a strictly classical composer by some musicologists. Some of the modulations you are trying to do early on in the movement would suggest a composer from a bit later in history.


----------



## hreichgott

violadude said:


> Also, I'm probably being way too pedantic, but just as a side note if you are trying to get your music to sound EXACTLY like Beethoven's, you're going to have to tone down the modulations just a tad. For example, in the slow movement, you move to e-flat minor near the very beginning. If you look at Beethoven's music closely though, throughout most of his life he still stuck pretty strictly to the whole "exposition only establishes the Tonic and Dominant" formula, despite some chromaticism that might mask that fact. It's one of the reasons he's still considered a strictly classical composer by some musicologists. Some of the modulations you are trying to do early on in the movement would suggest a composer from a bit later in history.


Such as this composer? 
Exposition, theme stated in measure 1 (C minor)







Exposition, theme stated in measure 12 (C minor)







Exposition, theme stated in measure 52 (E flat minor)


----------



## violadude

hreichgott said:


> Such as this composer?
> Exposition, theme stated in measure 1 (C minor)
> View attachment 31082
> 
> Exposition, theme stated in measure 12 (C minor)
> View attachment 31083
> 
> Exposition, theme stated in measure 52 (E flat minor)
> View attachment 31084


Ok, but that example is in a different context. It's stated much later in the movement after about 3 minutes or however long of c minor. Plus, I do believe that is a transitional theme whose ultimate goal is to reach E-flat Major. The example I pointed out in the OP's music is a random excursion to e-flat minor and back to c minor with no real harmonic function within the context of the exposition and it happens very early, after one or two phrases of c minor. This is something Beethoven probably would not do.


----------



## starry

itsik said:


> My actuall topic question Is: Can I become professional ? Or Can I quit the Hi-tech and lived from my music?


That's what you should have called the thread then, instead of the silly title it has.


----------



## violadude

itsik said:


> T
> My actuall topic question Is: Can I become professional ? Or Can I quit the Hi-tech and lived from my music?


I would say don't quit your day job just yet. And even if you become a master composer, still don't quit your day job because living off of your composition alone is not easy at all even for geniuses.


----------



## Blake

some guy said:


> But that's not what I was doing. I was trying to inject some specificity into the vague wash of generalities.
> 
> What does this mean?
> 
> Of course not. The past century is not past enough for its composers to have achieved the patina of profundity. And so what if they haven't? I've an idea. Listen to music. Dinna fash about whether it's "great" or "profound" or not. Enjoy it for what it is. Let your grandchildren's grandchildren (who you will never meet, just by the way) worry about profundity. Unless they come up with something better to do.:lol:
> 
> There. Now this is what I've been working on all these minutes. Well, it's another four hours until my plane leaves. Now what else can I do to spend time?


I like you, but this is tiring. Is it really a mystery when I say to stay in the heart? It's an intuitive feeling of universal connection... rather than being occupied with the personal mind, which bases itself on separation and selfishness.

Also our ability to find and listen to new composers is much easier than in the past... that's why it took so long for many great composers to get noticed back then. Not so much the case now. Especially with the internet, anyone can put their music out there to be found within minutes. So, figuring out who is "profound" happens a little quicker now-a-days.


----------



## EdwardBast

violadude said:


> I
> 
> Also, I'm probably being way too pedantic, but just as a side note if you are trying to get your music to sound EXACTLY like Beethoven's, you're going to have to tone down the modulations just a tad. For example, in the slow movement, you move to e-flat minor near the very beginning. If you look at Beethoven's music closely though, throughout most of his life he still stuck pretty strictly to the whole "exposition only establishes the Tonic and Dominant" formula, despite some chromaticism that might mask that fact. It's one of the reasons he's still considered a strictly classical composer by some musicologists. Some of the modulations you are trying to do early on in the movement would suggest a composer from a bit later in history.


Sonata "Appassionata" - Second theme of first movement in submediant. Likewise string quartet Op. 95
"Waldstein Sonata" - Second theme in mediant major.

There are numerous other examples. These are just a couple I thought of off the top of my head. Also, you are forgetting works in the minor mode modulating to the mediant ;-)

Beethoven was considered by some of his contemporaries and immediate successors to be the quintessential romantic. See E.T.A. Hoffman's review of the Fifth. Modern musicologists might be missing something.


----------



## violadude

EdwardBast said:


> Sonata "Appassionata" - Second theme of first movement in submediant. Likewise string quartet Op. 95
> "Waldstein Sonata" - Second theme in mediant major.
> 
> There are numerous other examples. These are just a couple I thought of off the top of my head. Also, you are forgetting works in the minor mode modulating to the mediant ;-)
> 
> Beethoven was considered by some of his contemporaries and immediate successors to be the quintessential romantic. See E.T.A. Hoffman's review of the Fifth. Modern musicologists might be missing something.


I believe the second post I made about the subject clarifies what I meant to express, but just to clarify further:

Yes, Beethoven modulated to other keys besides V as a secondary key.
Yes, Beethoven used some distant keys (such as e-flat minor in a c minor work) to transition from the first to the second subject
Yes, Beethoven used some chromaticism to flavor his expositions

What he did not do, as far as I'm aware of, is modulate to distant key areas at the very beginning of expositions and then modulate back to the tonic for nothing but to provide some contrast or carry out some artistic whim. If he ever did anything like that, the key area he modulated to almost certainly had a function within the overall exposition structure [Tonic first theme, (transition), secondary key area second theme]. This is, of course, provided that he is working within the realm of sonata form, which he usually was.

That's what I meant.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Beethoven was considered by some of his contemporaries and immediate successors to be the quintessential romantic. See E.T.A. Hoffman's review of the Fifth. Modern musicologists might be missing something.


Mozart and Haydn were at times also related to the Romantic movement in literature. But the history of music ended up carving up the eras differently.



Vesuvius said:


> Also our ability to find and listen to new composers is much easier than in the past... that's why it took so long for many great composers to get noticed back then. Not so much the case now. Especially with the internet, anyone can put their music out there to be found within minutes. So, figuring out who is "profound" happens a little quicker now-a-days.


I'm not so sure about that. I think that time will have the same kind of effect (though the timeframe may be different), because while the method of transmission may differ, the method of presentation in performance remains more or less the same.


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> Beethoven was considered by some of his contemporaries and immediate successors to be the quintessential romantic. See E.T.A. Hoffman's review of the Fifth. Modern musicologists might be missing something.


A fascinating historical document. You can read the relevant portion here.

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/eta-hoffman-on-beethoven


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> Mozart and Haydn were at times also related to the Romantic movement in literature. But the history of music ended up carving up the eras differently.


In fact, Hoffman names them as "romantic composers" along with Beethoven. Who'da thought it?


----------



## EdwardBast

violadude said:


> What he did not do, as far as I'm aware of, is modulate to distant key areas at the very beginning of expositions and then modulate back to the tonic for nothing but to provide some contrast or carry out some artistic whim. If he ever did anything like that, the key area he modulated to almost certainly had a function within the overall exposition structure [Tonic first theme, (transition), secondary key area second theme]. This is, of course, provided that he is working within the realm of sonata form, which he usually was.
> 
> That's what I meant.


First theme of the Appassionata: Lurches to G-flat major from F minor after one phrase. Doesn't really have any direct connection to the overall harmonic structure, though, admittedly, some pretty imaginative accounts of its logic have emerged. ("Grundgestalt as Tonal Function" by Patricia Carpenter, for example.)

No doubt what you are driving at, however, is that the OP's modulation doesn't seem aesthetically justified in a deep sense the way Beethoven's do. That I might agree with.


----------



## Guest

Vesuvius said:


> I like you, but this is tiring.


I like you, too. A lot. And have been more than a little puzzled by the posts you've made to this thread.



Vesuvius said:


> Is it really a mystery when I say to stay in the heart? It's an intuitive feeling of universal connection... rather than being occupied with the personal mind, which bases itself on separation and selfishness.


Well, not mystery so much as just comprehension. I simply cannot make the words "stay in the heart" make any sort of sense at all. And the "universal connection" part doesn't help at all at all. I would take heart to be an individual, personal thing. And you're taking it, I guess, as a suprapersonal kinda thing.

Nothin' wrong with that, but that could be the source of our contretemps.



Vesuvius said:


> Also our ability to find and listen to new composers is much easier than in the past... that's why it took so long for many great composers to get noticed back then. Not so much the case now. Especially with the internet, anyone can put their music out there to be found within minutes. So, figuring out who is "profound" happens a little quicker now-a-days.


I agree that new music is more accessible in this sense of the word. (Which is the only sense I like, just by the way.) But since the early 19th century, it's been more and more difficult for people to enjoy new music. It was probably worse even in 1870 than it is now, though it's pretty bad now. Anyone can put their music out there, but how easy is it to be accepted or even listened to?

Profundity takes some time and some thought and some effort to determine (to attribute). I would think that all that is more difficult a) when the thing under scrutiny is new and b) when the thing under scrutiny is also under suspicion as well.


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> A fascinating historical document. You can read the relevant portion here.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/eta-hoffman-on-beethoven


Actually, that is by no means the only relevant portion. The whole review stresses the work's unprecedented unity (the obvious motivic kind but more important, its overall shape). Nearly every aspect of this unity became part of a template for Romantic symphonies - minor to major mode progression, inter-movement thematic transformation and quotation, overall teleology focused on a climactic finale, etc.


----------



## Flamme

I bet itsik is really that Vivaldi character who opened series of topics about life and stuff...Puzzling us double...Anyway he has good ideas and bright future...


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> Actually, that is by no means the only relevant portion. The whole review stresses the work's unprecedented unity (the obvious motivic kind but more important, its overall shape). Nearly every aspect of this unity became part of a template for Romantic symphonies - minor to major mode progression, inter-movement thematic transformation and quotation, overall teleology focused on a climactic finale, etc.


The "relevance" of the opening was to the status of Beethoven as a "romantic" composer. The longer version of Hofmann's discussion of the 5th, omitting the technical analysis of the individual movements, can be found here. Scroll down to 1810.

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/


----------



## itsik

Flamme said:


> I bet itsik is really that Vivaldi character who opened series of topics about life and stuff...Puzzling us double...Anyway he has good ideas and bright future...


You are in the right direction to my intention ...I want

I wrote "Can I become beethoven?"
I did not wrote "Can I become *like* beethoven?"

So... something is missing!
Why I attached my violin and piano sonata that is quite similar to "Beethoven style"?

Before I will answer this, I want to discuss music direction until now.
I think (Please do'nt chuckle) the composers that came after the romantic era took the wrong turn.
I want to suggest a theory of mine that clarify my thoughts.

I call it "The harmonic synchronization theory".

As a good "Hi-tech" engineer, I will start with my requirements:
1. I like the romantic era music very much and I want it to improved to the limit. But not beyond!
2. I want to hear more than one theme at the same time.
3. Each theme will be fully harmonized.
4. Dis harmonization can occured. 
5. Harmonization must reside all over the composition.
6. At the end, The music must be hearble (I mean it will pleasure the listeners ear).

That's it!

I will post my theory in a new thread.
It is a theory in it diaper and it definitely will need refinements. I asked you all to be a part of it as an "open source" theory.


----------



## Mahlerian

itsik said:


> I think (Please don't chuckle) the composers that came after the romantic era took the wrong turn.


Believe me, I'm not laughing, I'm groaning. It seems every few months someone comes on these forums just to say this.



itsik said:


> I want to suggest a theory of mine that clarify my thoughts.
> 
> I call it "The harmonic synchronization theory".
> 
> As a good "Hi-tech" engineer, I will start with my requirements:
> 1. I like the romantic era music very much and I want it to improved to the limit. But not beyond!


Define the limits precisely. You are an engineer, are you not? What is it that strains music and what is the absolute breaking point?



itsik said:


> 2. I want to hear more than one theme at the same time.


Okay, counterpoint, good.



itsik said:


> 3. Each theme will be fully harmonized.


...what? Do you mean that each theme has a separate harmonization or that they work together in harmony?


itsik said:


> 4. Dis harmonization can occured.
> 5. Harmonization must reside all over the composition.


....Now I really don't know what you're talking about, but I think you mean that the music never devolves into nonsense, right? Well, I'm glad that masters like Schoenberg, Stravinsky, and Boulez never did such a thing.



itsik said:


> 6. At the end, The music must be hearble (I mean it will pleasure the listeners ear).


This listener finds great enjoyment in post-Romantic music of many kinds.



itsik said:


> That's it!
> 
> I will post my theory in a new thread.
> It is a theory in it diaper and it definitely will need refinements. I asked you all to be a part of it as an "open source" theory.


Yes, it needs improvements. First the premises need revision, then the conclusions.

I'm not intending to be mean to you here. You do have talent. I just think that you should focus on developing it rather than worrying about how art has "gone wrong". If it has gone wrong, then the best thing for you to do would be to compose something that shows how it can go right, rather than pontificating.


----------



## Yardrax

I think itsik's last post gave me a nervous twitch.


----------



## aleazk

I don't want to be rude, itsik, but what you are showing in that post is just plain ignorance. You say you are only an amateur, but you then judge a century of professional composers. That's a little pretentious. Your arguments are extremely weak and show a very superficial understanding of post-romantic music, and of music in general I dare say.
If you don't like that music, that's perfectly fine. But better to say "I don't like it, I don't get it" instead of talking about things one does not know very well.
Your reaction to post-romantic music is rather common place and cliche, and has been read hundred of times in this forum, particularly from people with a very limited exposure to classical music. That's not material for a theory, if you ask me.
You have composed a good study piece in the style of Beethoven. That's very good if you want to be a composer. But that's only the first step if you want to become a real composer. There are thousands of extremely talented music students all over the world composing in the style of Bach, Beethoven, etc., as part of their professional studies. In that world of professional composers, a piece "in the style of" has little artistic merit, if none. In that world, also, cliche opinions about a century of professional composers are pretty uninteresting.
Keep working and studying. Invest your time in working, composing and studying the music, leave the theories to the theorists.

edit: my post seems a little redundant after Mahlerian's last post... I should type faster!


----------



## hpowders

Get an ENT to sever your auditory nerves. Can't be Beethoven without deafness.


----------



## lll

Even by having Beethoven's exact genetic makeup the odds are you wouldn't come anywhere close to achieving his status, that's how hard it is to become influential in the world of music composition.


----------



## Blake

some guy said:


> I like you, too. A lot. And have been more than a little puzzled by the posts you've made to this thread.
> 
> Well, not mystery so much as just comprehension. I simply cannot make the words "stay in the heart" make any sort of sense at all. And the "universal connection" part doesn't help at all at all. I would take heart to be an individual, personal thing. And you're taking it, I guess, as a suprapersonal kinda thing.
> 
> Nothin' wrong with that, but that could be the source of our contretemps.
> 
> I agree that new music is more accessible in this sense of the word. (Which is the only sense I like, just by the way.) But since the early 19th century, it's been more and more difficult for people to enjoy new music. It was probably worse even in 1870 than it is now, though it's pretty bad now. Anyone can put their music out there, but how easy is it to be accepted or even listened to?
> 
> Profundity takes some time and some thought and some effort to determine (to attribute). I would think that all that is more difficult a) when the thing under scrutiny is new and b) when the thing under scrutiny is also under suspicion as well.


I think the thing separating our understanding here is language, and the extreme conditioning to what words "should" mean. I don't mean "heart" as a personal emotional center, more as the source of perception.

Also, I think that the enjoyment or understanding of music today tends to be a highly subjective thing. Some are so cluttered with biases that they can't allow themselves to accept change and evolution, while others digest this much more quickly. But it is a fact that the availability of past and contemporary music is becoming increasingly widespread.


----------



## hpowders

Look. Brahms had Beethoven in mind when he composed his first symphony. But it came out "Brahms".


----------



## violadude

EdwardBast said:


> First theme of the Appassionata: Lurches to G-flat major from F minor after one phrase. Doesn't really have any direct connection to the overall harmonic structure, though, admittedly, some pretty imaginative accounts of its logic have emerged. ("Grundgestalt as Tonal Function" by Patricia Carpenter, for example.)


Alright, I forgot about that part of it. But I do still think it's a bit different because Beethoven in that sonata uses the relationship between the tonic and the Neapolitan key as one of the main thematic materials gluing the piece together and it comes back in many important spots (the second theme of the exposition/recap for example, the exposition version is in Db Major, the recap version is in D Major if memory serves me correctly).


----------



## PetrB

*Can you become a professional?*

Was this piece a quick toss done in a week? (i.e. how quickly can and do you produce a finished piece?)

Can you compose convincingly in a myriad of period styles including the array of classical and non-classical genres from the early 20th century to present? 
.....[[Composer as artisan / utility composer for films, video, video games, etc.]]

Can you compose in a manner of contemporary classical which you think will be 'popular' enough? 
[John Adams is about the only living American composer who makes a living solely from commissions and the royalty fees from concert performances, radio play, and recordings -- he does not teach, he does not take side jobs comping film scores.]
.....[['Art Music' composer as independent artist]]

Can you compose in a highly palatable contemporary style and limit the technical execution to the well-trained amateur level of high school and university choral groups / wind bands? 
.....[[Eric Whitacre makes a full-time living supplying this classical market niche.]]

While there are rare and spectacular exceptions, here is a rather known fact:
Most careers are established between the ages of twenty to thirty*... after that the probability of viable career drops exponentially.

* for many a career classical performer or composer, serious and continuous training began previous aged twenty, often having started in early childhood, between ages three to eight years -- composers have been known to come to it later, but often still have that early childhood of some training at an instrument behind them.


----------



## Blake

Part of me screams - "don't worry about the probability of the chances you have to be successful... just create from the heart." Yet, there's another side that says -"Maybe we should conform to this societal mold, and maybe most aren't able to produce freely and successfully." 

Such is the game of life. You have to find your balance. We seem to all be here struggling together in this circus. Maybe there will be a time when life wont be synonymous with struggle. 

:tiphat:


----------



## itsik

Mahlerian said:


> If it has gone wrong, then the best thing for you to do would be to compose something that shows how it can go right, rather than pontificating.


I already compose it. I will give it as an example to the theory.


----------



## brianvds

some guy said:


> How is it that a subgroup of the category "people" gets to be taken as the whole category, excluding the other people? Sounds racist to me. But really, brian, I'm a person, and I actually want to listen to Karkowski and Amacher and Merzbow.


Indeed, but the market for that kind of music is vastly smaller than the market for more popular stuff, and the OP wants to make a living.



> Actually, the problem is that the commentary about new music hasn't changed for over two hundred years. Aside from the metaphor you used, this is very much like the criticism of Mozart compared to the superior Boccherini. Boccherini had already done everything good in music that could be done, leaving Mozart only an arid wasteland to till.


I am not arguing that music cannot change anymore, or that there is nothing original left to say. Only that over the past few centuries, "pushing the envelope" meant increasing chromaticism. You can go only so far with that before you end up with atonality.



> Nope. Ives had been composing long before he became an insurance executive. And he had to retire from both after some massive heart attacks.


Yesterday I saw an interesting BBC interview with Philip Glass, in which it transpired that into his forties, he was a cab driver by profession and then did music after his long shift. He worked from 4 to 11 or something like that, and would then compose from then until about six in the morning.



violadude said:


> Beethoven was considered by some of his contemporaries and immediate successors to be the quintessential romantic. See E.T.A. Hoffman's review of the Fifth. Modern musicologists might be missing something.


My intuition has always been that Beethoven and Schubert were classical in form, but romantic in spirit.



Flamme said:


> I bet itsik is really that Vivaldi character who opened series of topics about life and stuff...Puzzling us double...Anyway he has good ideas and bright future...


Nope, Itsik can actually compose.


----------



## violadude

Uh, I didn't say that Brianvds. Someone who was responding to me and quoted me said that.


----------



## brianvds

violadude said:


> Uh, I didn't say that Brianvds. Someone who was responding to me and quoted me said that.


Sorry, I simply went along with the software's autoquote function. Perhaps I shouldn't, because when I do the quotes manually I usually get them right.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> Part of me screams - "don't worry about the probability of the chances you have to be successful... just create from the heart." Yet, there's another side that says -"Maybe we should conform to this societal mold, and maybe most aren't able to produce freely and successfully."
> 
> Such is the game of life. You have to find your balance. We seem to all be here struggling together in this circus. Maybe there will be a time when life wont be synonymous with struggle.
> 
> :tiphat:


Currently, the trademarked Jiminy Cricket and that song lyric about your dreams coming true has come completely detached from waking up to see what is needed to have a real possibility at that dream -- and that is a common enough mindset at present.

I'm a career champion for the underdog, but now it seems we have adults with childish dream wishes running about asking anquestion which several decades ago would never have been a question from an adult 

So -- the real answer is no question asked, no advice taken: those who are compelled to / need to will walk away from their jobs, file bankruptcy, even shamefully abscond from other familial responsibilities, all in order to pursue that dream to the bitter end _*because they have to, and to not find out if they could have done it would kill them.*_

Usually, anytime you hear the question asked, by anyone much in their adult years, there is no satisfactory answer but only a reasonable and reasonably kind response: _"What are you doing about it?"_

It might be a major buzz-kill to give a drunk a quad espresso with six hits of sugar in it, but it is not unkind


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> Believe me, I'm not laughing, I'm groaning. It seems every few months someone comes on these forums just to say this.


I wonder if that rate of frequency of the appearance on TC of those with very similar sets of gifts -- and their accompanying theories -- is a near parallel with the frequency rate of occurrence within the general population of those who have Savant Syndrome?

It is that facile and clever 'like as to' (name the composer being mimicked) which seems always to be lacking the more irregular features and the real punch of invention which distinguish the real from the mimicked (almost like but not seems to be a constant trait of what is made by those with the above named condition) -- that is ringing my alarm bell here.


----------



## Flamme

I predicted this, poor chap was torn to pieces!


----------



## Pennypacker

Reading (and listening) the OP, I wanted to say that you have very good intuitive skills, but no one can answer this question for you, unfortunately you have to make that decision first, find out if you were right later. For that, I would have suggested, you should expand your knowledge of music beyond the 19th century to see where you can fit. But reading your last comments, I would suggest, ASAP, to pull your head out of that dark place that contains too much steams of self satisfaction, and very little precious oxygen to think rationally. Why on earth would you try to come up with any theories, before acquiring the necessary knowledge of the existing ones? While you don't have it, always assume that someone has already come up with these genius thoughts, whether they were accepted or horribly refuted (hint: You're going towards the later).


----------



## scratchgolf

Flamme said:


> I predicted this, poor chap was torn to pieces!


1. I didn't see a single comment that was out of line.

2. If you ask a question, expect and answer.


----------



## Blake

scratchgolf said:


> 2. If you ask a question, expect an answer.


This comment seems obvious, but it's one that only a few understand. People normally want an answer that they expect... because they're not really asking a question. They just want verification for their silliness.

Ohh, that's harsh... I know. :tiphat:


----------



## science

Flamme said:


> I predicted this, poor chap was torn to pieces!


I think he got a fair bit of positive feedback, but unfortunately some people seem to have taken the "Beethoven" bit more seriously than he seems to have intended, and all the deities forbid aspirations to Beethovenhood. Like money, it is not a subject for jest.


----------



## Blake

I completely understood his jest to be the next Beethoven. I hope we're not that ridiculous here to think he was absolutely serious. He was using Beethoven as a metaphor... at least that's how I make sense of it.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> I completely understood his jest to be the next Beethoven. I hope we're not that ridiculous here to think he was absolutely serious. He was using Beethoven as a metaphor... at least that's how I make sense of it.


Yeah, but he "just wanted validation for [his] silliness," right?


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> I completely understood his jest to be the next Beethoven. I hope we're not that ridiculous here to think he was absolutely serious. He was using Beethoven as a metaphor... at least that's how I make sense of it.


The jest, though, was accompanied by the presentation of a Beethoven mimic piece...

In that piece, I'd say he found the joke in the music, but now he has to come up with the rest.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Yeah, but he "just wanted validation for [his] silliness," right?


Well, if silliness is understood by both the initiating and the receiving parties, I'd suppose that a different scenario would ensue.

I can't make a blue-print to the entire universe here.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Well, if silliness is understood by both the initiating and the receiving parties, I'd suppose that a different scenario would ensue.
> 
> I can't make a blue-print to the entire universe here.


No need anyway. Just be sure to keep people in their place. There are statuses to defend!


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> The jest, though, was accompanied by the presentation of a Beethoven mimic piece...
> 
> In that piece, I'd say he found the joke in the music, but now he has to come up with the rest.


So, we're narrowing this down to... 1. Either he is that ridiculous, or 2. This is all a play. Either or, he has some skill, but I'm hoping he's just playing around with his talent right now. And I think that's what's happening. I've known myself to be wrong a few times though....


----------



## Blake

science said:


> No need anyway. Just be sure to keep people in their place. There are statuses to defend!


Meh, statuses crumble just as statues do.


----------



## PetrB

science said:


> No need anyway. Just be sure to keep people in their place. There are statuses to defend!


I await the magnum opus on Status from he who is seeing it under every dust bunny swept under the carpet. "It is everywhere!"

:lol:...:lol:...:lol:...


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Meh, statuses crumble just as statues do.


If so, I guess we all implicitly assent to the proposition that the experience is worthwhile intrinsically and regardless of its conclusion.


----------



## science

PetrB said:


> I await the magnum opus on Status from he who is seeing it under every dust bunny swept under the carpet. "It is everywhere!"
> 
> :lol:...:lol:...:lol:...


Other people are doing the good work! I simply choose not to ignore it.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> So, we're narrowing this down to... 1. Either he is that ridiculous, or 2. This is all a play. Either or, he has some skill, but I'm hoping he's just playing around with his talent right now. And I think that's what's happening. I've known myself to be wrong a few times though....


You will see some seriously talented people in school who act about as frivolous as it gets, and they are also frivolous in what they are making. Now in young talented folk, this is not uncommon, it is a self-defense mechanism against realizing one has big talent, and emotionally dodging the implications of the reality of what "obligations" -- and real self-confrontational work -- will be part of the deal if they really want to realize both talent and career. 
[[Teachers are so used to seeing this commonplace dynamic they have ready and practiced chisels to break down those barriers, swiftly and deftly, and without worrying about coddling that student's "feelings." After all, the student is there to seriously work, and if they are not being straightforward, acting in earnest, they are wasting their time, and the time of both the profs and their peers.]]

In an older well out of school adult, the frivolity is just 'frivolous,' and to me shows they are not serious enough, and probably never have been -- which is why rather late in the game to be a contestant and _during the beginning-middle of their other career_, they are asking if they can have another career.

On a completely different side, having talked with a few other TC members who do compose, it seems 'those who do not' are very easily and seriously impressed with just about anyone who can 'put a few notes together.' Meh.


----------



## science

PetrB said:


> You will see some seriously talented people in school who act about as frivolous as it gets, and they are also frivolous in what they are making. Now in young talented folk, this is not uncommon, it is a self-defense mechanism against realizing one has big talent, and emotionally dodging the implications of the reality of what "obligations" -- and real self-confrontational work -- will be part of the deal if they really want to realize both talent and career.
> [[Teachers are so used to seeing this commonplace dynamic they have ready and practiced chisels to break down those barriers, swiftly and deftly, and without worrying about coddling that student's "feelings." After all, the student is there to seriously work, and if they are not being straightforward, acting in earnest, they are wasting their time, and the time of both the profs and their peers.]]
> 
> In an older well out of school adult, the frivolity is just 'frivolous,' and to me shows they are not serious enough, and probably never have been -- which is why, they are asking, _during the beginning-middle of their other career_, if they can have another career.
> 
> On a completely different side, having talked with a few other TC members who do compose, it seems 'those who do not' are very easily and seriously impressed with just about anyone who can 'put a few notes together.' Meh.


Everything must be taken this seriously, or something bad will happen.


----------



## PetrB

science said:


> Other people are doing the good work! I simply choose not to ignore it.


Ghosts!?! ............................


----------



## PetrB

science said:


> Everything must be taken this seriously, or something bad will happen.


Something bad won't happen, but for the OP it means something won't happen... whatever the secret Freudian / Jungian wish... I'm not an analyst, so I think rightly assume the OP is earnest in wishing to have a career in composing, operative word so far, "Wish."

Some of these threads end up being like a baby-sit.

How much baby sit did you need to follow through on your training and career? I bet little or none... because no one is going to give up their life or much of their time to hold your hand as if you needed it like a crutch to walk through life.

The OP has now compliments, encouragement, and some accurate musical criticisms on their work, the rest, I think and hope you'd agree, is up to the OP.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> If so, I guess we all implicitly assent to the proposition that the experience is worthwhile intrinsically and regardless of its conclusion.


It seems to be the common delusion. 



PetrB said:


> You will see some seriously talented people in school who act about as frivolous as it gets, and they are also frivolous in what they are making. Now in young talented folk, this is not uncommon, it is a self-defense mechanism against realizing one has big talent, and emotionally dodging the implications of the reality of what "obligations" -- and real self-confrontational work -- will be part of the deal if they really want to realize both talent and career.
> [[Teachers are so used to seeing this commonplace dynamic they have ready and practiced chisels to break down those barriers, swiftly and deftly, and without worrying about coddling that student's "feelings." After all, the student is there to seriously work, and if they are not being straightforward, acting in earnest, they are wasting their time, and the time of both the profs and their peers.]]
> 
> In an older well out of school adult, the frivolity is just 'frivolous,' and to me shows they are not serious enough, and probably never have been -- which is why rather late in the game to be a contestant and _during the beginning-middle of their other career_, they are asking if they can have another career.
> 
> On a completely different side, having talked with a few other TC members who do compose, it seems 'those who do not' are very easily and seriously impressed with just about anyone who can 'put a few notes together.' Meh.


There appears to be a good bit of experience in this post, and I definitely respect your opinion. I think sometimes though, the truly gifted can't be put into easily prepared categories. As you said before, they'll die if they can't create. I don't know if I feel this in the present thread, but the guy has got enough talent to play with. It just depends on what the expectations are.


----------



## PetrB

science said:


> Everything must be taken this seriously, or something bad will happen.


Well _Excuse Me!_ The OP was asking about a career, not a hobby.


----------



## maestro57

I'm not a fan of 21st century music. Australia pianist Michael Kieran Harvey loves to play that kind of music. It's definitely not my cup of tea.

Just because we live in the 21st century does not mean we must compose music that sounds like something from out of space or futuristic. Everyone is so caught up about "doing the right thing" because "it's the way it's supposed to be done".

Good on you for composing what you like and not feeling like you had to conform.

So, OP, you have two thumbs up from me when it comes to your compositions. If I have one criticism, I would've not named the thread "Can I become Beethoven?" or hint that you're trying to be someone else. These are YOUR compositions. It MAY sound Beethoven-esque, as you suggest, but don't give people preconceived notions and allow them to judge you before they've even heard the piece. It's an unwanted, self-fulfilling prophecy that might've worked against you in this case.


----------



## PetrB

maestro57 said:


> I'm not a fan of 21st century music. Australia pianist Michael Kieran Harvey loves to play that kind of music. It's definitely not my cup of tea.
> 
> Just because we live in the 21st century does not mean we must compose music that sounds like something from out of space or futuristic. Everyone is so caught up about "doing the right thing" because "it's the way it's supposed to be done".
> 
> Good on you for composing what you like and not feeling like you had to conform.
> 
> So, OP, you have two thumbs up from me when it comes to your compositions. If I have one criticism, I would've not named the thread "Can I become Beethoven?" or hint that you're trying to be someone else. These are YOUR compositions. It MAY sound Beethoven-esque, as you suggest, but don't give people preconceived notions and allow them to judge you before they've even heard the piece. It's an unwanted, self-fulfilling prophecy that might've worked against you in this case.


Well, the OP is 'conforming' to mimic Beethoven 

If there are enough fans like you, and those are also ready to pony up and be the consumer, a host of otherwise unknowns will have careers. _Go for it!_

[P.s. Most consumers go for the real deal, i.e. they prefer Beethoven to later 'Beethovenesque.']


----------



## itsik

Mahlerian said:


> Believe me, I'm not laughing, I'm groaning. It seems every few months someone comes on these forums just to say this.
> 
> Define the limits precisely. You are an engineer, are you not? What is it that strains music and what is the absolute breaking point?
> 
> Okay, counterpoint, good.
> 
> ...what? Do you mean that each theme has a separate harmonization or that they work together in harmony?
> 
> ....Now I really don't know what you're talking about, but I think you mean that the music never devolves into nonsense, right? Well, I'm glad that masters like Schoenberg, Stravinsky, and Boulez never did such a thing.
> 
> This listener finds great enjoyment in post-Romantic music of many kinds.
> 
> Yes, it needs improvements. First the premises need revision, then the conclusions.
> 
> I'm not intending to be mean to you here. You do have talent. I just think that you should focus on developing it rather than worrying about how art has "gone wrong". If it has gone wrong, then the best thing for you to do would be to compose something that shows how it can go right, rather than pontificating.


Thank you for your comment.

Update # 1 to the theory requirements:
1. Use any harmonic theme style you like.
2. I want to hear more than one theme at the same time.
3. Each theme of the above has a separate harmonization and counterpoint.
4. Dis harmonization may occured. 
5. Harmonization must reside all over the composition.
6. The composition must be hearble (I mean it will pleasure the listeners ear).

I will post the theory in a new thread.
It will include an example composition I wrote with link to YuoTube (Quintet for Piano, Violin, Viola and 2 Cellos)


----------



## norman bates

itsik said:


> 2. I want to hear more than one theme at the same time.
> 3. Each theme of the above has a separate harmonization and counterpoint.


I find this very confusing. "More than one theme at the same time" to me in one word is called counterpoint.
But you add that each melody should have a separate counterpoint? I don't understand it.


----------



## Guest

itsik said:


> 6. The composition must be hearble (I mean it will pleasure the listeners ear).


Still privileging one certain type of listener. And calling that one type "the" as if that one certain type were the only kind.

It is not.


----------



## science

PetrB said:


> Well _Excuse Me!_ The OP was asking about a career, not a hobby.


But even more importantly, there are attitudes to regulate.


----------



## hpowders

Okay, it's 3 days now. Has the OP become Beethoven yet? I'd love to hear his latest 33rd piano sonata. Should be terrific, given his incredibly unfair advantages of lacking deafness and having a modern keyboard to write for. Should be BETTER than Beethoven!


----------



## PetrB

science said:


> But even more importantly, there are attitudes to regulate.


It is regrettable some feel compelled to be busy with tracking such imagined bugbears, but whatever floats a soul's boat.


----------



## hpowders

science said:


> But even more importantly, there are attitudes to regulate.


Sounds like Goebbels.


----------



## peeyaj

Some of the comments here were brutal.. I'll be having thoughts of posting "Can I become Schubert?". :lol:


----------



## KenOC

peeyaj said:


> Some of the comments here were brutal.. I'll be having thoughts of posting "Can I become Schubert?". :lol:


Heck, I can't even become Raff.


----------



## brianvds

peeyaj said:


> Some of the comments here were brutal.. I'll be having thoughts of posting "Can I become Schubert?". :lol:


I was thinking of starting that thread, but in view of what has now transpired here, I think I'll tone down my ambitions to Dittersdorf.


----------



## KenOC

brianvds said:


> I was thinking of starting that thread, but in view of what has now transpired here, I think I'll tone down my ambitions to Dittersdorf.


Don't even try unless you've got a *seriously* funny name.


----------



## itsik

KenOC said:


> Don't even try unless you've got a *seriously* funny name.


Itsik is a nickname for Isaac (You know Newton, Stern ... Or don't you?)


----------



## brianvds

itsik said:


> Itsik is a nickname for Isaac (You know Newton, Stern ... Or don't you?)


You forgot to mention Asimov!

But I don't think KenOC was making fun at your screen name; my guess is he was referring to Dittersdorf, whose full name was Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf. Even when he was just a schoolboy, his classmates would utter twitters at Ditters.

My favourite artist to imitate would be Picasso, but once again my name pales in comparison: Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Crispiniano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso. Gesundheit!


----------



## scratchgolf

brianvds said:


> You forgot to mention Asimov!


Don't forget Hayes


----------



## starry

So now this thread has somehow reached 9 pages....has he become Beethoven yet? If he has we could throw away the old one now that we have a new one.


----------



## Aramis

starry said:


> So now this thread has somehow reached 9 pages....has he become Beethoven yet?


No, because instead of performing place for ritual of Beethovenian Incarnation, this thread became excuse for Some Guy to try convincing people that it's better to know about Fluxus movement than to write stylistically obsolete violin sonatas.

Personally, I think it's incredibly important to do both.


----------



## hpowders

To be Beethoven, he would need a thorough grounding in counterpoint by FJ Haydn, but last I looked, he be dayud.


----------



## PetrB

science said:


> But even more importantly, there are attitudes to regulate.


How heavily ironic.


----------



## neoshredder

norman bates said:


> The difference between you and Beethoven is that it seems to me that you're trying to emulate him while he was trying to create something original. I don't think that Beethoven today would have composed the same music he wrote in the nineteen century. After all, one of the last pieces of him was the grosse fugue that was very ahead of its time, that say a lot about his attitude.


Except he wouldn't be able to be original these days as everything has been done.


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> Except he wouldn't be able to be original these days as *everything has been done.*


On any given day of past or present human history someone is hammering away at this old saw.

That is perhaps the lamest and weakest excuse of all time for not having made something of interest.


----------



## Flamme

But mostly its true everything is recycling nowdays...A good recycling but still...Fresh ideas are almost impossibru (!) to find...


----------



## neoshredder

It can still be interesting. It just has to be a mixture of styles or influences. Not a complete ripoff. But the days of making things completely original are over.


----------



## Aramis

I recall when I was reading quotes by certain medieval (about Xth century) Persian poet. He was also saying that he can't write anything new, since all was written already. 1000 years later, and nothing has changed... everything is still written already.


----------



## violadude

"After this, what is left for us to write?" An alleged quote by Franz Schubert upon hearing Beethoven's 14th string quartet after which followed almost 200 more years of music. No excuses.


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> It can still be interesting. It just has to be a mixture of styles or influences. Not a complete ripoff. But the days of making things completely original are over.


You are repeating yourself repeating yourself.


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> "After this, what is left for us to write?" An alleged quote by Franz Schubert upon hearing Beethoven's 14th string quartet after which followed almost 200 more years of music. No excuses.


Ahh, but _*There is nothing new under the sun.*_

We can all lie down, give up and die now.


----------



## Machiavel

Yes you can but it is unlikely too happen. Still it should not deter yourself from your goals if that's what you really want because in the end that's all that matters; What you want for yourself. I must reiterate that the odds you become a figure who will stands time and be remember as one the greats in classical music history is pretty shallow. I'm pretty sure Beethoven himself did not knew his legacy would endure generations. Same goes for everyone except the megalomaniac and narcissic people who cannot think of anything else but themsleves. Wagner comes to my mind :lol:


----------



## neoshredder

violadude said:


> "After this, what is left for us to write?" An alleged quote by Franz Schubert upon hearing Beethoven's 14th string quartet after which followed almost 200 more years of music. No excuses.


At some point, it had to end. Even Rock music is starting to run out of ideas. At least after the grunge movement, they seemed confused on what comes next. The longer the music history, the harder it is to create something new. Beethoven would be frustrated these days with trying to be innovative. The answer is bring back past styles that people like. But put your own spin on it. Not plagiarize.


----------



## Flamme

I dont see any new things in Rock only modifications of the old ones...


----------



## Aramis

violadude said:


> "After this, what is left for us to write?" An alleged quote by Franz Schubert upon hearing Beethoven's 14th string quartet after which followed almost 200 more years of music. No excuses.


Reminds me of similiar (also alleged) quote by Bellini, who wondered if there are any other heights for opera to reach after attending performance of Rossini's _Semiramide_. Then, PUFF <himself>, PUFF <Verdi> PUFF <Wagner> PUFF <Puccini> - all what we know today as the standard, most loved repertoire.


----------



## Blake

Aramis said:


> I recall when I was reading quotes by certain medieval (about Xth century) Persian poet. He was also saying that he can't write anything new, since all was written already. 1000 years later, and nothing has changed... everything is still written already.


Maybe everything that will be is already in the ether, waiting to be translated. Nobody really comes up with anything themselves. It's already done.


----------



## starry

neoshredder said:


> It can still be interesting. It just has to be a mixture of styles or influences. Not a complete ripoff. But the days of making things completely original are over.


Has anybody really been completely original? Works develop from influences and gradually become more individual.


----------



## PetrB

starry said:


> Has anybody really been completely original? Works develop from influences and gradually become more individual.


No... it seems here to be just a ready excuse for not trying, or cutting some well-enough written mimic piece slack it does not, imho, deserve


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> No... it seems here to be just a ready excuse for not trying, or cutting some well-enough written mimic piece slack it does not, imho, deserve


I think you're over-interpreting what he said, while automatically jumping to pessimism. It's simply to realize that all things are part of this connected, evolving web. Nobody comes up with anything by themselves. Put someone on an island and have them write a symphony without ever hearing music. It's highly unlikely.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> I think you're over-interpreting what he said, while automatically jumping to pessimism. It's simply to realize that all things are part of this connected, evolving web. Nobody comes up with anything by themselves. Put someone on an island and have them write a symphony without ever hearing music. It's highly unlikely.


But this came from the cynical / despairing "its all already been done," as a sort of apologia for someone writing like Beethoven.

I agree with you.

Beethoven did not arrive in the last third or last quarter of his productive period like Venus born from the froth on the the half-shell, after all. They ALL 'came from someplace,' and those places all had influences.

What has been left out of this 'discussion' altogether, I think, is why even working within a generally accepted style, one composer writes successful but rather square music (Salieri) and another writes some of the most flexible and expressive music we have (Mozart) -- in the similar style. One is clearly bigger on talent and imagination than the other, both supposedly with the same "deftness" of craft in their toolboxes.

Go figure


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> But this came from the cynical / despairing "its all already been done," as a sort of apologia for someone writing like Beethoven.
> 
> I agree with you.
> 
> Beethoven did not arrive in the last third or last quarter of his productive period like Venus born from the froth on the the half-shell, after all. They ALL 'came from someplace,' and those places all had influences.
> 
> What has been left out of this 'discussion' altogether, I think, is why even working within a generally accepted style, one composer writes successful but rather square music (Salieri) and another writes some of the most flexible and expressive music we have (Mozart) -- in the similar style. One is clearly bigger on talent and imagination than the other, both supposedly with the same "deftness" of craft in their toolboxes.
> 
> Go figure


And so, the play of existence. I think we had a thread about your last paragraph recently... Who really knows where true talent and genius comes from. You can say it's genetic evolution, but where did that come from? It seems like a fruitless play of the mind, because whatever you land on, you can always ask the same question - "well, where did that come from?"


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> But this came from the cynical / despairing "its all already been done," as a sort of apologia for someone writing like Beethoven.


Reminds me of this: "Everything that can be invented has been invented." --Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899.

A false attribution it seems, but it makes a point.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Reminds me of this: "Everything that can be invented has been invented." --Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899.
> 
> A false attribution it seems, but it makes a point.


Oh, good. We don't have any need of patents anymore


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> And so, the play of existence. I think we had a thread about your last paragraph recently... Who really knows where true talent and genius comes from. You can say it's genetic evolution, but where did that come from? It seems like a fruitless play of the mind, because whatever you land on, you can always ask the same question - "well, where did that come from?"


Talent happens anywhere, and so far, has not been at all fully accounted for as to the where or why of it. Ditto genius. I think trying to answer that question of where those come from is probably fruitless


----------



## hpowders

One day, I hope the secret of extreme musical genius is revealed to me by its creator.


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> Talent happens anywhere, and so far, has not been at all fully accounted for as to the where or why of it. Ditto genius. I think trying to answer that question of where those come from is probably fruitless


Yea, I don't think there is an answer. Because an answer would point to an object that would also have a beginning somewhere... so, "where did that come from?" Oh my, the limitations of this head o' mine.


----------



## neoshredder

hpowders said:


> One day, I hope the secret of extreme musical genius is revealed to me by its creator.


I think Ligeti is as close as you'll get. The style really has limitations. Unlike earlier music.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> I think Ligeti is as close as you'll get. The style really has limitations. Unlike earlier music.


Every style has limitations.


----------



## neoshredder

violadude said:


> Every style has limitations.


Well to an extent. But some styles allow more opportunities for a genius to excel in. Looking at history can give you a clue on which styles succeeded the most.


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> Looking at history can give you a clue on which styles succeeded the most.


No, it won't. Looking at history can give you a clue about how long something has been around.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> Well to an extent. But some styles allow more opportunities for a genius to excel in. Looking at history can give you a clue on which styles succeeded the most.


It depends on the person I guess. Some geniuses excelled further with serial music (if that can be considered a style) and some excelled further with say, neo-classical music. And some composers, such as Stravinsky, excelled at both. I'm not sure what you mean by a certain style providing more opportunities for a genius to excel in. It depends on what style the composer gravitates more towards.


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> One day, I hope the secret of extreme musical genius is revealed to me by its creator.


It has been, from at least the times of Perotin and Guillaume de Machaut to the present: we're listening to it!


----------



## hreichgott

I've always hoped that the 20th-21st c. innovations had the effect of making more styles available to write in, not to cut off all those that had been written in before.


----------



## violadude

hreichgott said:


> I've always hoped that the 20th-21st c. innovations had the effect of making more styles available to write in, not to cut off all those that had been written in before.


Which styles have been "cut off"?


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> Yea, I don't think there is an answer. Because an answer would point to an object that would also have a beginning somewhere... so, "where did that come from?" Oh my, the limitations of this head o' mine.


It is not limitations of your head... give yourself a bit more credit, please.

Some questions have no real answer, or a simple answer at any rate.

Some will remain unanswered, be asked and re-asked, as a fun exercise


----------



## hreichgott

violadude said:


> Which styles have been "cut off"?


Was responding to the preceding page of comments.


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> It is not limitations of your head... give yourself a bit more credit, please.
> 
> Some questions have no real answer, or a simple answer at any rate.
> 
> Some will remain unanswered, be asked and re-asked, as a fun exercise


Agreed.

My last statement was a lighthearted attempt at a comical spill of self-deprecation. I can't give myself credit for that one.


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> Which styles have been "cut off"?


I think if someone is composing music which sounds more like Ravel than the composer of the piece, that will be 'cut off,' because it leads people to want to hear Ravel, instead.

Bringing it up again as a fine example of working with an older style but 'making something of it,' vs. a watered down parody:
Lucas Foss Renaissance Concerto, for flute and orchestra (luscious piece, imo)





Here, the use of Renaissance material or procedures and the piece itself were not 'cut off.' I don't think any styles have been 'cut off,' either: it depends entirely upon what you do within any style if it is to be currently found of any interest.

It is the composer, not the style, which makes all the difference.


----------



## neoshredder

violadude said:


> It depends on the person I guess. Some geniuses excelled further with serial music (if that can be considered a style) and some excelled further with say, neo-classical music. And some composers, such as Stravinsky, excelled at both. I'm not sure what you mean by a certain style providing more opportunities for a genius to excel in. It depends on what style the composer gravitates more towards.


Just a coincidence that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven along with many others came during the 18th and 19th Century styles? I think those eras offered the highest probability of geniuses to excel.


----------



## neoshredder

hreichgott said:


> I've always hoped that the 20th-21st c. innovations had the effect of making more styles available to write in, not to cut off all those that had been written in before.


Yep it seemed to end the Romantic Era. Unfortunate. That style allowed more opportunities. But now everyone is afraid to Compose in an old style. As we know some of the names they get called for writing in an old style.


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> Just a coincidence that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven along with many others came during the 18th and 19th Century styles? I think those eras offered the highest probability of geniuses to excel.


Then the 'coincidence' of the style of the era is responsible for Perotin, the Flemish contrapuntal school, Guillaume de Machaut, Monteverdi, Rameau, Vivaldi, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Debussy, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Messiaen, Berio, etc. ????? of course if you have the narrowest spectrum of views on only those you named from the Baroque and Classical eras as being real genius and the rest not, _that limitation is yours and yours alone _(you're going against oceans of tides and a collective tsunami of generally agreed upon 'geniuses,' to do so.)

I'm thinking you are ignoring and denying all the pre baroque and post classical composers who were equally as brilliant, by dint of your musical preferences if nothing else.

It is not the style, it is the individual and what they do within it; if they are finding that lacking, they expand it, or find another style more suited to what they want to do.

*Style is less than secondary to talent or genius*. Outwardly, at least on the surface, it is a manifestation of their genius -- and I remind you of the hundreds of far lesser composers who lived and wrote at the same time within those similar styles.

Do not blame a shallow thing like 'style,' for goodness' sake.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> Yep it seemed to end the Romantic Era. Unfortunate. That style allowed more opportunities. But now everyone is afraid to Compose in an old style. As we know some of the names they get called for writing in an old style.


Dude, name one "great" composer who consistently wrote in an older style. Bach never composed pieces in the style of Machaut, Liszt never composed pieces trying to mimic the Baroque period, Schoenberg never wrote pieces trying to mimic Mozart etc. And if they did, it was a one off composition and didn't have much to do with their authentic style. It has always been such that newer styles replace older ones among the ranks of the great composers. I don't see how the 20th/21st century is any different in that regard.


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> Yep it seemed to end the Romantic Era. Unfortunate. That style allowed more opportunities. But now everyone is afraid to Compose in an old style. As we know some of the names they get called for writing in an old style.


The medieval era ended, the renaissance era ended, the baroque era ended, the classical era ended, and all along the way I bet someone was lamenting the ending of those eras because they just could not get their head around their own era.

That plaint is so now repeated as one of your main thoughts that maybe you should start a TC special group for it. "Mourners of the ended Romantic Era," or some such.


----------



## neoshredder

violadude said:


> Dude, name one "great" composer who consistently wrote in an older style. Bach never composed pieces in the style of Machaut, Liszt never composed pieces trying to mimic the Baroque period, Schoenberg never wrote pieces trying to mimic Mozart etc. And if they did, it was a one off composition and didn't have much to do with their authentic style. It has always been such that newer styles replace older ones among the ranks of the great composers. I don't see how the 20th/21st century is any different in that regard.


That ideology works alright until all the good styles are past. My opinion of course.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> That ideology works alright until all the good styles are past. My opinion of course.


Whhaaa? Where do you get the idea that I'm propagating an ideology? I'm just telling you what has happened in the past and what continues to happen to this day. No one is "cutting off" older styles. There were probably many nameless/faceless composers from the past that composed in older styles, just as there are today. It's just that no one wants to hear imitation if they can hear the real thing.


----------



## Mahlerian

violadude said:


> Whhaaa? Where do you get the idea that I'm propagating an ideology?


From the same place where a poster on another forum (who also posts here and will remain unnamed) got the idea that my saying Schoenberg's music is objectively "not noise" is a statement of taste...


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> From the same place where a poster on another forum (who also posts here and will remain unnamed) got the idea that my saying Schoenberg's music is objectively "not noise" is a statement of taste...


Not me! If so, I demand a quote! But in fact any such statement is in fact a statement of taste -- since "objectively" is meaningless here. Little as I care for Schoenberg's music, he was a sincere and hardworking guy, and I (subjectively) would not consider his music "noise".


----------



## Blake

All music is arranged noise.


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> Not me! If so, I demand a quote! But in fact any such statement is in fact a statement of taste -- since "objectively" is meaningless here. Little as I care for Schoenberg's music, he was a sincere and hardworking guy, and I (subjectively) would not consider his music "noise".


I think the point here is that Schoenberg's music can't objectively be considered noise since it is organized sound, not randomized sound.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Not me! If so, I demand a quote!


If you insist.



Mahlerian said:


> Does the criticism consist of "I believe that Schoenberg's aesthetic of unity of content and density of variation led to an art that is overly taxing on listeners, composers, and musicians alike"?
> 
> Or is it "Schoenberg wrote noise and destroyed music!"
> 
> Well, the first is perhaps something that can be argued. It's not a sentiment I agree with, but it doesn't purport to be anything more than an opinion. The second, on the other hand, closes off any kind of discussion, in addition to being objectively false.





KenOC said:


> I can't accept you as the sole arbiter of what's "objectively false."


The wording is a bit different, I agree.



KenOC said:


> But in fact any such statement is in fact a statement of taste -- since "objectively" is meaningless here. Little as I care for Schoenberg's music, he was a sincere and hardworking guy, and I (subjectively) would not consider his music "noise".


How is objectively meaningless here? Either something is music or it is not. Noise is not in itself considered music (Noise music being a different matter).


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> The wording is a bit different, I agree.


The whole meaning is different.



Mahlerian said:


> How is objectively meaningless here? Either something is music or it is not.


You are stating an opinion about music. Can that be objective??? Only *my* opinions are objective!


----------



## arpeggio

*There is only one Beethoven*



violadude said:


> Dude, name one "great" composer who consistently wrote in an older style. Bach never composed pieces in the style of Machaut, Liszt never composed pieces trying to mimic the Baroque period, Schoenberg never wrote pieces trying to mimic Mozart etc. And if they did, it was a one off composition and didn't have much to do with their authentic style. It has always been such that newer styles replace older ones among the ranks of the great composers. I don't see how the 20th/21st century is any different in that regard.


You are going down a path I have been contemplating for several days. I am unable to think of any successful first rate post-Beethoven composer who sounds like Beethoven. There are contemporaries of Beethoven who sound like second rate Beethovens.

The first real successful post-Beethoven composer I can think of is Weber (he was sixteen years younger) and he sounds nothing like Beethoven.

It appears to me that all great composers no matter what century they are from succeed in finding their own unique voice that separates them from the crowd. One of the more successful late 20th Century Romantics was George Lloyd, yet he still had his own unique sound. No one becomes a good composer by trying to sound like someone else.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> You are stating an opinion about music. Can that be objective??? Only *my* opinions are objective!


So then, you agree that the statement "a truck going by on the highway is noise" and "Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 is noise" have an exactly equal amount of truth in them, both being opinion?


----------



## Blake

Mahlerian said:


> So then, you agree that the statement "a truck going by on the highway is noise" and "Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 is noise" have an exactly equal amount of truth in them, both being opinion?


Depends on if you're talking to a truck-driver or a classical fan.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> So then, you agree that the statement "a truck going by on the highway is noise" and "Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 is noise" have an exactly equal amount of truth in them, both being opinion?


An interesting question. As the computer says, "Let me think about that."


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> From the same place where a poster on another forum (who also posts here and will remain unnamed) got the idea that my saying Schoenberg's music is objectively "not noise" is a statement of taste...


:lol:...:lol:...:lol:...

When I wipe the tears from my eyes, I will be able to read the PM I'm requesting from you wherein you name names


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> That ideology works alright until all the good styles are past. My opinion of course.


You make it sound as if musical styles are something one is shopping for at the mall, and you can not find a thing to wear, so instead go home empty-handed, and remain in your old sets of clothes... sort of like being stuck in a mental closet.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> An interesting question. As the computer says, "Let me think about that."


But why wait? _That_ answer will come back "42" -- as always


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> You make it sound as if musical styles are something one is shopping for at the mall, and you can not find a thing to wear, so instead go home empty-handed, and remain in your old sets of clothes... sort of like being stuck in a mental closet.


Are you saying that we *must* buy something when we go to the mall?


----------



## itsik

Some of you have missed my point.
I don't want to be like Beethoven. I want to become Beethoven!

The harmonic synchronization theory:

Requirements:
1. Use any harmonic theme style you like.
2. I want to hear more than one theme at the same time.
3. Each theme of the above has a separate harmonization and counterpoint.
4. Dis harmonization may occur. 
5. Harmonization must reside all over the composition.
6. The composition must be hearable (I mean it will pleasure the listeners ear).

Basics:
1. Every X bars of theme 1 use Y bars of theme 2.
2. The synchronization points of X and Y will be harmonics.
3. ....

Example:
1. Let say every 2 bars of theme 1 we use 3 bars of theme 2.
2. Actually, Theme 2 is 3/2 faster than them 1.









I will post the full theory in a new thread.
It will include, as an example, a composition I wrote with link to YuoTube (Quintet for Piano, Violin, Viola and 2 Cellos)


----------



## violadude

itsik said:


> Some of you have missed my point.
> I don't want to be like Beethoven. I want to become Beethoven!


You need to convert to Hinduism and hope your soul reincarnates into the body of Beethoven.


----------



## KenOC

itsik said:


> Some of you have missed my point. I don't want to be like Beethoven. I want to become Beethoven!


I remember, as a VERY young person, riding my bike several miles on cold mornings along the shores of Lake Oswego to caddy at the local links. I would listen to Beethoven in my mind. It always seemed so easy! "I can do that!" Somewhat later I tried. Not so easy after all. Perhaps you will do better. Best of luck!


----------



## noambenhamou

I signed up to this forum JUST so I can reply to this.

First of all "hater's gonna hate".

I am happy that you are composing in Beethoven's style and not trying to do some modern, new-age no melody, no specific key signature, modern composition. Those are garbage.

Most "classical" composition noadays are like modern art. Some looser hippie with no tallent, decides to put pain on his dog's paws, and have the dog walk over some paper - and calls it art.

IT's NOT ART! IT'S RETARDED!

Same with alot of music written in the past 100 years. It's just noise. Sometimes it's impossible to even know what key the piece is written in. 

Anyway - your Sonata is very good and most people would not be able to copy beethoven like that.
But you did NOT copy beethoven - just the style. But the music, chord progressions, melody is all new. It's a creation! And it's beautiful, just like Beethoven - in some parts it's really beautiful - and everything in between is "filler".


So there is no doubt you can compose. Like anything else, with more practice, you'll do even better, come up with better ideas and develop your own unique style, which MAY still sound like beethhoven - but that's not bad. Schubert and Hydan in some sense sound like beethhoven.

Back to answer you question. Back in the day, composing music did not make alot of money.

The composers were teaching piano to very rich students.
The were also commissioned a work. That means - they were given money to write lets say "a new national anthem for Israel". 
Some of the work got published and made profit especially since pianos became affordable to the middle class and piano students needed etudes etc to practice.

Today, the money is just like it was. Commissioned work. Composing music for movie background.

Look up "hans zimmer" on youtube. He is a movie composer.
Also john williams who composed schindler's list and I think star wars.

A violin sonata doesn't make money. But it doesn't mean you shouldn't be composing violin sonatas!

Why don't you compose a main theme for a movie which you did not feel like the music portrayed the emotion and feeling of the movie? Then you can post it here for us to hear, or maybe bypass this forum and submit it to a producer! 

Noam


----------



## violadude

noambenhamou said:


> First of all "hater's gonna hate".
> 
> I am happy that you are composing in Beethoven's style and not trying to do some modern, new-age no melody, no specific key signature, modern composition. Those are garbage.
> 
> Most "classical" composition noadays are like modern art. Some looser hippie with no tallent, decides to put pain on his dog's paws, and have the dog walk over some paper - and calls it art.
> 
> IT's NOT ART! IT'S RETARDED!
> 
> Same with alot of music written in the past 100 years. It's just noise. Sometimes it's impossible to even know what key the piece is written in.


Hm, well like you said, haters gonna hate


----------



## TurnaboutVox

> Most "classical" composition noadays are like modern art. Some looser hippie with no tallent, decides to put pain on his dog's paws, and have the dog walk over some paper - and calls it art.
> 
> IT's NOT ART! IT'S RETARDED!
> 
> Same with alot of music written in the past 100 years. It's just noise. Sometimes it's impossible to even know what key the piece is written in.


I do like an informed, well considered opinion.


----------



## PetrB

TurnaboutVox said:


> Hmm, I do like an informed, well considered opinion.


A tip of the hat from this retarded head to you, sir 

_"THAT'S RETARDED!"
_:lol:,,,:lol:,,,:lol:,,,

Who needs comedy when it is in such an abundant rich natural supply?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

I think that a number of us on this forum, those who like music of a less 'traditional' tonality, may have similar disabilities - which I think might be called 'Tonal relationship appreciation disorder' in the next revision to DSM-V. I may write a paper on it...


----------



## PetrB

TurnaboutVox said:


> I think that a number of us on this forum may have similar disabilities - which I think might be called 'Tonal relationship appreciation disorder' in the next revision to DSM-V. I may write a paper on it.


Be certain it is couched in post-modernist phraseology ~ your grant will be assured


----------



## trazom

TurnaboutVox said:


> I do like an informed, well considered opinion.


And so articulate, too!


----------



## noambenhamou

Ok touché. Wasn't my best writing rushed on the iPhone. 

I read a reply from page 6 or 7. 

"I am not arguing that music cannot change anymore, or that there is nothing original left to say. Only that over the past few centuries, "pushing the envelope" meant increasing chromaticism. You can go only so far with that before you end up with atonality. "

That's what I meant. So many composers are trying to push so hard at something new, it becomes atonal. I have been to concerts many times, usually piano concerto when they started out with playing a lesser known modern work. I always had a difficult time staying focused and enjoying the sound. To me it seemed like noise as I could not seem to find a melody or a chord progression to follow.

Reading the replies there seem to be a underlying topic of originality. 

Can one compose music in romantic or classical era style or are all possibilities taken?

I think that a composer's primary master is "music" not originality, and innovation. 
Although the latter are important and appreciated, without "music" they will be for nothing. 

So what is music? To me is dissonance and resolution. Between chord progressions, and more miniature dissonance and resolution within the melody notes in relation to each other and the relationship to the current underlying chord. 

Please don't take "chord" too literal as 3 or more notes being played simultaneously. 

If my definition is accurate at some basic level, the possibilities for chord progressions, melodies, rhythms, and various uses of instruments or combination of instruments are endless. So the idea that all classical opportunities of music does not strike me as valid.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

I appreciate your re-articulation. That sort of music can be very difficult to learn to like, but the chromaticism and the dissonance is often what I find exciting in new(er) music. 

I appreciate Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven very much, but I don't feel the need to hear new music in their style - life is short and those composers already wrote a lot of it (and as others have pointed out, so did their slightly less talented contemporaries, many of whom wrote music that is still very satisfying).

If someone doesn't like the classical music of the last 100 years, well, it's not compulsory to listen. And there are other musical genres to explore.


----------



## Piwikiwi

I personally would like to hear stuff that is like Stravinsky neo-classical period. It is using old styles but in a such a fresh way that it sounds new and not regurgitated.


----------



## noambenhamou

Yes. Sometimes you can surprise yourself by how your personal taste can change. 
When I was a child I swore to myself I would never like mushrooms. Well, now I can't get enough. 

I have tried listening to modern compositions but I fear that may be too advanced. I suspect it's something I have to ease into in order to acquire the taste for it. Currently, rachmaninoff is the latest composer I can appreciate. I'm having a problem listening to Scriabin, ravel, and Debussy which to you are probably very entry level in terms of chromatic experimentation. 

If you understand where I am coming from, If you would be kind to send me a few links to modern yet still melodic that I can sort of ease myself into. 

I may never find the modern compositions beautiful, but maybe I can develop the skill to listen to it and at the very least feel what the composer is trying to accomplish. 

If you never had sushi before, you cannot be expect to start off with raw eel right? Hahaha

I understand what you mean about not feeling the need for a larger classical or romantic repertoire.

Music can provoke a very colorful array of emotions. Agreed? And sometimes I feel like music can bring out feelings that you never even imagined could exist. 
I feel like classical and romantic music has exhausted those variety of emotions. There isn't anything new.


----------



## Piwikiwi

noambenhamou said:


> Yes. Sometimes you can surprise yourself by how your personal taste can change.
> When I was a child I swore to myself I would never like mushrooms. Well, now I can't get enough.
> 
> I have tried listening to modern compositions but I fear that may be too advanced. I suspect it's something I have to ease into in order to acquire the taste for it. Currently, rachmaninoff is the latest composer I can appreciate. I'm having a problem listening to Scriabin, ravel, and Debussy which to you are probably very entry level in terms of chromatic experimentation.
> 
> If you understand where I am coming from, If you would be kind to send me a few links to modern yet still melodic that I can sort of ease myself into.
> 
> I may never find the modern compositions beautiful, but maybe I can develop the skill to listen to it and at the very least feel what the composer is trying to accomplish.
> 
> If you never had sushi before, you cannot be expect to start off with raw eel right? Hahaha
> 
> I understand what you mean about not feeling the need for a larger classical or romantic repertoire.
> 
> Music can provoke a very colorful array of emotions. Agreed? And sometimes I feel like music can bring out feelings that you never even imagined could exist.
> I feel like classical and romantic music has exhausted those variety of emotions. There isn't anything new.


I think this is good entry level modern music. Try to look at the dissonance in the same you way learn to appreciate food that tastes bitter.





Edit: Sorry about the thumbnail with mussolini :s


----------



## TurnaboutVox

> If you understand where I am coming from, If you would be kind to send me a few links to modern yet still melodic that I can sort of ease myself into.
> 
> I may never find the modern compositions beautiful, but maybe I can develop the skill to listen to it and at the very least feel what the composer is trying to accomplish.
> 
> If you never had sushi before, you cannot be expect to start off with raw eel right?


I do appreciate your dilemma here, and it may be that you could try a composer like Stravinsky as Piwikiwi suggests. I can remember finding Stravinsky quite thorny to start with (sea-cucumber in Sushi terms?).

If you are 'at' Rachmaninov now - and I think of him as really quite 'conservative' in terms of his musical language them I wonder if a more cautious journey might be advisable?

I think I got there by listening to the ambiguous tonality in Gabriel Fauré's music (which leads you to Debussy, Ravel, Poulenc etc.) and to Gustav Mahler's early symphonies (which leads you to many late romantic and modernist Germanic composers: Richard Strauss, the second Viennese School etc.

The roots of these developments lie further back, eg. in late Schumann, in Brahms (though there are people on this forum much better able to tell you about him and his influence on later music) and in Franz Liszt, who used a lot of chromaticism in his writing. So those composers might provide another way in, if you're not already familiar with them.


----------



## noambenhamou

Piwikiwi, thanks for posting this.

The dissonance in the piece is not over the top but I must be honest, I don't like it and allow me to explain.

I don't "Feel" anything when listening to it. No feeling of urgency like in an agitatto type composition, no feeling of blissfulness and peace like with a Chopin nocturne. Some music can induce more complex feelings such as regret. I don't even feel basic simple feelings like anger, sadness or happiness. 

Am I suppose to expect these type of emotions? At 9 minutes I may have felt something, but the feeling was quickly taken away by dissonance. The theme at 10 minutes is a bit more emotionally inducing, but it's not very deep and been done much better in the past. IN MY OPINION.

I will listen to this a few more times, perhaps something will grow on me. I'm am really trying to keep an open mind.

I was listening to this in my room, and in the living room I have Schumann piano concerto playing on the stereo. When I heard it briefly after listening to this Stravinsky, I felt like I got transported to heaven.

Speaking of Schumann, I may not have accurate information but maybe someone can tell me if it is right and elaborate.

I think during the time of Schumann there was a major feud. Schumann and Mendelssohn and I want to say Brahms on one side, and Liszt and Wagner on the other side. It was regarding purity of music. Liszt wanted to experiment with chromatic scales, colors, and atonality, and Schumann's camp were purists. You couldn't simply "Jump" from a minor to g sharp major. And every musical composition needed to have an underlying identifiable chord progression.

I would be on their camp  I don't do taste acquired foods. I don't eat it if its bitter, and I dont drink wine or beer because it does not taste good. I'm not an ex alcoholic, I just don't like the taste 

I'm am going to listen again!
Sorry to hijack this thread but I believe in a world of possibilities, and there is a possibility something may click with this Stravinsky piece, even though the chances seem very slim at the moment haha


----------



## starry

itsik said:


> Some of you have missed my point.
> I don't want to be like Beethoven. I want to become Beethoven!


Many fantasize about being a composer, writing a work, performing it, receiving acclaim for it. So there is nothing unique in what you are thinking. But composing is a practical activity, the only way you could be Beethoven is to pass off his works as your own (not recommended). I assume you simply want inspiration from Beethoven, in which case be inspired to be yourself.


----------



## noambenhamou

Turnaboutvox, how interesting. We posted the same thing about Schumann vs Liszt at the same time.

I'm not "At" Rachmaninoff. I can appreciate about 20% of his compositions for piano. The other 80% is over my head (I don't want to be insulting) but what I mean is "ugly".

I can't stand Liszt as a composer. I play alot of Liszt but it's never original works. Its always transcriptions of Schubert or Paganini.


----------



## PetrB

TurnaboutVox said:


> I think that a number of us on this forum, those who like music of a less 'traditional' tonality, may have similar disabilities - which I think might be called 'Tonal relationship appreciation disorder' in the next revision to DSM-V. I may write a paper on it...


If you work a word beginning with "i" between relationship and appreciation, that will yeild a Snappy Acronym for it to speed the idea along  Feel free to use that: it's yours. :tiphat:

[[EDIT ADD: For another zippy / zippier Acronym, you you change it to;

Tonal 
Appreciation
Relationships 
Disorder


----------



## norman bates

noambenhamou said:


> Yes. Sometimes you can surprise yourself by how your personal taste can change.
> When I was a child I swore to myself I would never like mushrooms. Well, now I can't get enough.
> 
> I have tried listening to modern compositions but I fear that may be too advanced. I suspect it's something I have to ease into in order to acquire the taste for it. Currently, rachmaninoff is the latest composer I can appreciate. I'm having a problem listening to Scriabin, ravel, and Debussy which to you are probably very entry level in terms of chromatic experimentation.
> 
> If you understand where I am coming from, If you would be kind to send me a few links to modern yet still melodic that I can sort of ease myself into.
> 
> I may never find the modern compositions beautiful, but maybe I can develop the skill to listen to it and at the very least feel what the composer is trying to accomplish.
> 
> If you never had sushi before, you cannot be expect to start off with raw eel right? Hahaha
> 
> I understand what you mean about not feeling the need for a larger classical or romantic repertoire.
> 
> Music can provoke a very colorful array of emotions. Agreed? And sometimes I feel like music can bring out feelings that you never even imagined could exist.
> I feel like classical and romantic music has exhausted those variety of emotions. There isn't anything new.


I wonder what you think of works like Gesualdo's madrigals, or Bach and his art of the fugue, or Beethoven and his grosse fuge. To me are way more harsh and even deliberately unpleasant than a lot of music composed by Debussy sounds very pretty and relaxing.
I mean:

Debussy





Beethoven


----------



## PetrB

starry said:


> Many fantasize about being a composer, writing a work, performing it, receiving acclaim for it. So there is nothing unique in what you are thinking. But composing is a practical activity, the only way you could be Beethoven is to pass off his works as your own (not recommended). I assume you simply want inspiration from Beethoven, in which case be inspired to be yourself.


I'm afraid this want is akin to wanting to be 'a star,' i.e. wanting to be / play a role, or seeing yourself in a role.

Some writer said that if a young hopeful writer said to him, _"I want to be a writer,"_ he thought there was little hope for that happening for the person who said it.

He said he did have hope for the promise of a young hopeful who came to him and said, instead, _"I want to write."_

One is 'an act,' a posture, like wearing a costume or set of clothes; the other is action, all about "to do / to make."

That writer was correct. 
If you you have any chance at really doing it, you'd better be a verb and not a noun


----------



## noambenhamou

I see what you mean about bach fuges. 
I don't have music theory education but from what it seems like, he changes key quite rapidly but always using a diminished chord in between the transitions, sort of like a gateway.

The use of diminished chords to smoothly transition between keys is using alot in classical and romantic music and sounds like "Fair play" to my ears.

Maybe I'm not making any sense. What I mean by diminished chord is a chord that is minor 3rd spacing from each note. I don't understand music theory, but I think I can hear it


----------



## Couac Addict

Do you mean in a _Six Million Dollar Man_ kind of way?


----------



## Piwikiwi

noambenhamou said:


> Piwikiwi, thanks for posting this.
> 
> The dissonance in the piece is not over the top but I must be honest, I don't like it and allow me to explain.
> 
> I don't "Feel" anything when listening to it. No feeling of urgency like in an agitatto type composition, no feeling of blissfulness and peace like with a Chopin nocturne. Some music can induce more complex feelings such as regret. I don't even feel basic simple feelings like anger, sadness or happiness.
> 
> Am I suppose to expect these type of emotions? At 9 minutes I may have felt something, but the feeling was quickly taken away by dissonance. The theme at 10 minutes is a bit more emotionally inducing, but it's not very deep and been done much better in the past. IN MY OPINION.
> 
> I will listen to this a few more times, perhaps something will grow on me. I'm am really trying to keep an open mind.
> 
> I was listening to this in my room, and in the living room I have Schumann piano concerto playing on the stereo. When I heard it briefly after listening to this Stravinsky, I felt like I got transported to heaven.
> 
> Speaking of Schumann, I may not have accurate information but maybe someone can tell me if it is right and elaborate.
> 
> I think during the time of Schumann there was a major feud. Schumann and Mendelssohn and I want to say Brahms on one side, and Liszt and Wagner on the other side. It was regarding purity of music. Liszt wanted to experiment with chromatic scales, colors, and atonality, and Schumann's camp were purists. You couldn't simply "Jump" from a minor to g sharp major. And every musical composition needed to have an underlying identifiable chord progression.
> 
> I would be on their camp  I don't do taste acquired foods. I don't eat it if its bitter, and I dont drink wine or beer because it does not taste good. I'm not an ex alcoholic, I just don't like the taste
> 
> I'm am going to listen again!
> Sorry to hijack this thread but I believe in a world of possibilities, and there is a possibility something may click with this Stravinsky piece, even though the chances seem very slim at the moment haha


I tbink you expect it to be romantic which it isn't


----------



## noambenhamou

No. Not to be argumentative, but if it was Michael Jackson Billy jean, I would like it. I'm expecting harmony of sorts. I'm not sure, but you are right in the sense that if I expected the right thing, I may enjoy it. 

I expected dissonance as you suggested. I heard it, and didn't let it bother me.

I think I'm expecting provoked emotions of some sort. Any emotions. 
What does this piece make you feel? Maybe if you explain that to me, I would be able to understand.


----------



## violadude

noambenhamou said:


> Piwikiwi, thanks for posting this.
> 
> The dissonance in the piece is not over the top but I must be honest, I don't like it and allow me to explain.
> 
> I don't "Feel" anything when listening to it. No feeling of urgency like in an agitatto type composition, no feeling of blissfulness and peace like with a Chopin nocturne. Some music can induce more complex feelings such as regret. I don't even feel basic simple feelings like anger, sadness or happiness.
> 
> Am I suppose to expect these type of emotions? At 9 minutes I may have felt something, but the feeling was quickly taken away by dissonance. The theme at 10 minutes is a bit more emotionally inducing, but it's not very deep and been done much better in the past. IN MY OPINION.
> 
> I will listen to this a few more times, perhaps something will grow on me. I'm am really trying to keep an open mind.
> 
> I was listening to this in my room, and in the living room I have Schumann piano concerto playing on the stereo. When I heard it briefly after listening to this Stravinsky, I felt like I got transported to heaven.
> 
> Speaking of Schumann, I may not have accurate information but maybe someone can tell me if it is right and elaborate.
> 
> I think during the time of Schumann there was a major feud. Schumann and Mendelssohn and I want to say Brahms on one side, and Liszt and Wagner on the other side. It was regarding purity of music. Liszt wanted to experiment with chromatic scales, colors, and atonality, and Schumann's camp were purists. You couldn't simply "Jump" from a minor to g sharp major. And every musical composition needed to have an underlying identifiable chord progression.
> 
> I would be on their camp  I don't do taste acquired foods. I don't eat it if its bitter, and I dont drink wine or beer because it does not taste good. I'm not an ex alcoholic, I just don't like the taste
> 
> I'm am going to listen again!
> Sorry to hijack this thread but I believe in a world of possibilities, and there is a possibility something may click with this Stravinsky piece, even though the chances seem very slim at the moment haha


Hm you don't feel a sense of urgency in Dumbleton Oaks? Try listening to it again but instead of paying attention to the harmony, listen to the rhythmic vitality of the work.

Also, regarding your comment about the Romantic Era "feud". Schumann was considered very harmonically adventurous for the time and certainly wasn't considered part of any "conservative" circles. The feud was mostly between Brahms and the Liszt/Wagner/Wolf/Bruckner crowd. And it wasn't so much about harmonic inventiveness because Brahms had plenty of that even though he took a slightly more disciplined approach to harmony. A lot of it had to do with the fact that Brahms hated program music.


----------



## Aramis

PetrB said:


> I'm afraid this want is akin to wanting to be 'a star,' i.e. wanting to be / play a role, or seeing yourself in a role.
> 
> Some writer said that if a young hopeful writer said to him, _"I want to be a writer,"_ he thought there was little hope for that happening for the person who said it.
> 
> He said he did have hope for the promise of a young hopeful who came to him and said, instead, _"I want to write."_
> 
> One is an 'act,' a posture, like wearing a costume or set of clothes; the other is all about "to do / to make."
> 
> That writer was correct.
> If you you have any chance at really doing it, you'd better be a verb and not a noun


Here, you got caught on spreading "romantic conceits" that you apparently want to put down by every possible chance. The truth, though, is that some of greatest artists were attracted not only to the genuine act of creation by itself, but also to the idea of being the artist by mans of "playing a role, or seeing yourself in a role", as you put it. Think of Wagner whose letters/other writings can make you wonder if he could ever say anything without expression of "look at me, I'm an artist" between the lines.


----------



## Piwikiwi

noambenhamou said:


> No. Not to be argumentative, but if it was Michael Jackson Billy jean, I would like it. I'm expecting harmony of sorts. I'm not sure, but you are right in the sense that if I expected the right thing, I may enjoy it.
> 
> I expected dissonance as you suggested. I heard it, and didn't let it bother me.
> 
> I think I'm expecting provoked emotions of some sort. Any emotions.
> What does this piece make you feel? Maybe if you explain that to me, I would be able to understand.


Well not much really other than excitement but neither does bach his brandenburg concerto. I listen to music to make me feel anything i like to appreciate the inventiveness and craftsmanship. I like absolute music mostly. The expectation that you need to feel something concrete is already a very romantic attitude. It's not wrong to see things like that but just understand that it is a mainly romantic mindset.


----------



## Guest

Any chance of jettisoning the labels and examining the content of what's actually being said?

(Calling something a name is not quite the same as understanding the thing. The name might be part of the understanding, to be sure, but the name itself is not a substitute for thinking, examining, understanding.)


----------



## Piwikiwi

Oops dubbel post


----------



## PetrB

Aramis said:


> Here, you got caught on spreading "romantic conceits" that you apparently want to put down by every possible chance. The truth, though, is that some of greatest artists were attracted not only to the genuine act of creation by itself, but also to the idea of being the artist by mans of "playing a role, or seeing yourself in a role", as you put it. Think of Wagner whose letters/other writings can make you wonder if he could ever say anything without expression of "look at me, I'm an artist" between the lines.


If Wagner had not been an actively busy boy primarily composing, take that away and you have primarily left but an everyday poser.

So where are these romantics (other than yourself?) on TC who are anywhere near as busy actually writing music as was Wagner? Certainly they are not the ones who come on board and whinge about non-tertian harmony?


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> It is pretty hard to replicate the weltschmerz or sentiments of yesteryear, because you had to be a part of that era to have those genuine.


That seems to be the prevailing mood, however. That not only is it easy to replicate the Anschauung of the past, but that doing so _is_ genuine.

(And never get any more specific than "past," either. 'Cause every different era, once it's over, is just part of "the" past, indistinguishable from any other era, but unmistakably superior to "the" present.)


----------



## Aramis

PetrB said:


> It is pretty hard to replicate the weltschmerz or sentiments of yesteryear, because you had to be a part of that era to have those genuine.


On the contrary, people in that era massively followed these ideas for the sake of fashion and THEN it wasn't genuine. Now, when these sentiments are considered passe by majority, if one connects with them it's much more likely that the feeling is genuine and natural, not coming from the pressure.

Besides, the human feelings remain the same all through the history and one would have to see no difference between artistic movement and the human element behind to say that there are things that modern people can't feel because these were felt in XIXth century. "XIXth century feelings", what a ridiculous idea.

_- Man, I feel so bad about the way this world is
- Dude, what are you trying to sell me, you can't feel weltschmerz in XXIst century, just like you can't get sick from 1918 Spanish flu_


----------



## hpowders

Son, you can be anything you want to be. If not President of the United States, then at the very least, Beethoven.


----------



## hpowders

Piwikiwi said:


> I think this is good entry level modern music. Try to look at the dissonance in the same you way learn to appreciate food that tastes bitter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Sorry about the thumbnail with mussolini :s


Looks like Moe, Larry and Curley.


----------



## mmsbls

noambenhamou said:


> The dissonance in the piece is not over the top but I must be honest, I don't like it and allow me to explain.
> 
> I don't "Feel" anything when listening to it. No feeling of urgency like in an agitatto type composition, no feeling of blissfulness and peace like with a Chopin nocturne. Some music can induce more complex feelings such as regret. I don't even feel basic simple feelings like anger, sadness or happiness.
> 
> Am I suppose to expect these type of emotions? At 9 minutes I may have felt something, but the feeling was quickly taken away by dissonance. The theme at 10 minutes is a bit more emotionally inducing, but it's not very deep and been done much better in the past. IN MY OPINION.
> 
> I will listen to this a few more times, perhaps something will grow on me. I'm am really trying to keep an open mind.
> 
> I was listening to this in my room, and in the living room I have Schumann piano concerto playing on the stereo. When I heard it briefly after listening to this Stravinsky, I felt like I got transported to heaven.


Based on your descriptions your musical tastes sound very similar to mine 5-7 years ago or so. I did not enjoy the vast majority of Debussy and Ravel, and I strongly disliked modern composers I heard. I'm pretty sure that I liked nothing by Stravinsky. I couldn't understand how _anyone_ could possibly find pan-tonal (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern) enjoyable.

But I loved classical music and viewed modern composers as simply continuing the tradition that started many centuries ago. If beautiful Renaissance music had turned into beautiful Baroque which turned into beautiful Classical music which turned into beautiful Romantic music, then Romantic music had apparently turned into beautiful Modern music. I just didn't quite see the beauty yet - much as the vast majority of people don't see the beauty of classical music in general.

Now I love much modern music. There's still plenty I don't like, but I've enormously changed my tastes. I adore Sravinsky's Dumbarton Oaks Concerto. Berg's violin concerto is not just listenable and likeable but it is stunningly beautiful at times. Many other works that I "could not possibly enjoy" earlier, I greatly look forward to hearing now.

I do believe that just about anyone who adores earlier classical music can learn to greatly appreciate modern music, but I also think for many it requires extended listening over a potential long period of time to many varied works. Apparently, there is a new musical language that takes some of us significant time to appreciate. For me the result was, without question, worth the effort.



noambenhamou said:


> I would be on their camp  I don't do taste acquired foods. I don't eat it if its bitter, and I dont drink wine or beer because it does not taste good. I'm not an ex alcoholic, I just don't like the taste


I am exactly like that. Drinks and food are not worth the effort to enjoy them. Things like science and music are.



noambenhamou said:


> I think I'm expecting provoked emotions of some sort. Any emotions.
> What does this piece make you feel? Maybe if you explain that to me, I would be able to understand.


For me there is a rhythmic vitality that I find irresistible. It makes me feel like dancing. The rhythmic pulse of the bassoon is simply wonderful. It's cool, it's fun, it's energetic.


----------



## Blake

mmsbls said:


> I am exactly like that. Drinks and food are not worth the effort to enjoy them. Things like science and music are.


Aw man, you were doing so well... and then you lock yourself in with this concept. There are many who consider the culinary school to be an art. Like music, it's the arrangement of sensual stimulants to meet some desired effect. How can one say that the combination of auditory stimulants can be an art, but not the combination of gustatory stimulants? A certain level of closed-mindedness would be needed to make such a claim.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

> Originally Posted by noambenhamou
> 
> I think I'm expecting provoked emotions of some sort. Any emotions.
> What does this piece make you feel? Maybe if you explain that to me, I would be able to understand.


I intended to reply earlier to these parts of your post this morning but I didn't have time then. I've been thinking about my reply during the day.

OK. To take the provoked emotions first, I found that, for example, Shostakovich (symphonies, chamber music) provoked grief, despair, exhilaration, sadness, feelings of identification with an isolated artist, etc.

Bartok (string quartets, piano and violin concerti) provoked a feeling of going on a wild, exciting journey with the composer. Hindemith (chamber music at first), an odd intimacy with the composer's private world. Webern (string quartets) - a sense of utter perfection in the precision and brevity of his musical utterances - not just in thought, but in feeling too, and so on.

You might counter that you do not want to be in contact with feelings like that, but I think that to know one's self, to know others as they really are, and to understand one's own and others' experience, it is valuable to explore feelings that are not always pleasant. Many of these composers were writing in the context of very difficult and unpleasant societal events and processes, and had something worthwhile to communicate about (their reaction to) it.



> Originally Posted by noambenhamou
> 
> I would be on their camp I don't do taste acquired foods. I don't eat it if its bitter, and I dont drink wine or beer because it does not taste good. I'm not an ex alcoholic, I just don't like the taste


Let's come to your point about not 'doing' taste acquired foods. This is a good analogy with musical taste, I think, because it is also about avoiding things that do not taste 'sweet'. There is, in my view, a lot to be gained from learning to tolerate and to like bitter and sour tastes (amongst others). Let me assure you, wine and beer (and their metaphorical musical equivalents) can taste very good indeed - when you have learned to appreciate them. But it isn't compulsory to do so.


----------



## Flamme

What the heck happened here?


----------



## mmsbls

Vesuvius said:


> Aw man, you were doing so well... and then you lock yourself in with this concept. There are many who consider the culinary school to be an art. Like music, it's the arrangement of sensual stimulants to meet some desired effect. How can one say that the combination of auditory stimulants can be an art, but not the combination of gustatory stimulants? A certain level of closed-mindedness would be needed to make such a claim.


OK, I have a certain level of closed-mindedness. Of course, I never said that gustatory stimulants are or are not art.


----------



## Blake

mmsbls said:


> OK, I have a certain level of closed-mindedness. *Of course, I never said that gustatory stimulants are or are not art.*


Yea, you didn't. I imposed that position on you.

A simply summary: The culinary arts are certainly worth the time. You'll find a similar brilliance to a master composer from a master chef.


----------



## starry

PetrB said:


> It is pretty hard to replicate the weltschmerz or sentiments of yesteryear, because you had to be a part of that era to have those genuine.


So isn't it hard for performers too then, and then ultimately for listeners to receive this as well? Or do we end up being programmed well enough to understand the earlier styles as we have heard so much of it? Or at least to understand the styles from the modern perspective we receive it as.


----------



## arpeggio

*Modern Music*



mmsbls said:


> Based on your descriptions your musical tastes sound very similar to mine 5-7 years ago or so. I did not enjoy the vast majority of Debussy and Ravel, and I strongly disliked modern composers I heard. I'm pretty sure that I liked nothing by Stravinsky. I couldn't understand how _anyone_ could possibly find pan-tonal (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern) enjoyable.
> 
> But I loved classical music and viewed modern composers as simply continuing the tradition that started many centuries ago. If beautiful Renaissance music had turned into beautiful Baroque which turned into beautiful Classical music which turned into beautiful Romantic music, then Romantic music had apparently turned into beautiful Modern music. I just didn't quite see the beauty yet - much as the vast majority of people don't see the beauty of classical music in general.
> 
> Now I love much modern music. There's still plenty I don't like, but I've enormously changed my tastes. I adore Sravinsky's Dumbarton Oaks Concerto. Berg's violin concerto is not just listenable and likeable but it is stunningly beautiful at times. Many other works that I "could not possibly enjoy" earlier, I greatly look forward to hearing now.
> 
> I do believe that just about anyone who adores earlier classical music can learn to greatly appreciate modern music, but I also think for many it requires extended listening over a potential long period of time to many varied works. Apparently, there is a new musical language that takes some of us significant time to appreciate. For me the result was, without question, worth the effort.


My musical journey is similar to 'mmsbls'.

Form "Works/Composers You've Changed Your Mind About?" Thread:



arpeggio said:


> Interesting thread. Surprised that there has been so little activity in it.
> 
> During the first fifty years of my life I did not get Atonal/Avant-garde music with the exception of Berg. I liked 20th century music but I gravitated toward the more conservative tonal composers: Hindemith, Barber, Copland, Shostakovitch, Britten, _etc._ I was listening to some Xenakis the other day and I thought, "Hey this stuff is pretty good."
> 
> Don't ask me why? I really do not know.
> 
> Now that I get the modernistic stuff, it gets me into all sorts of trouble.
> 
> Ironically all of the anti-modernistic rhetoric has had the opposite effect on me. It makes appreciate this stuff even more.


----------



## brianvds

hpowders said:


> Son, you can be anything you want to be. If not President of the United States, then at the very least, Beethoven.


I think it is probably way easier to become president of the U.S. than to become Beethoven. After all, thus far 43 guys have managed the presidential trick, but to the best of my knowledge there has been only one Beethoven. 



hpowders said:


> Looks like Moe, Larry and Curley.


It's Moessolini in the middle there...


----------



## hpowders

brianvds said:


> I think it is probably way easier to become president of the U.S. than to become Beethoven. After all, thus far 43 guys have managed the presidential trick, but to the best of my knowledge there has been only one Beethoven.
> 
> It's Moessolini in the middle there...


In that case, Moe, Curley and Larry. 

Yes, as the OP is about to learn, there can only be ONE Beethoven. His grave can be found in Vienna midway between the Blue Danube and Eine Kleine Nachmusik.


----------



## PetrB

Aramis said:


> On the contrary, people in that era massively followed these ideas for the sake of fashion and THEN it wasn't genuine. Now, when these sentiments are considered passe by majority, if one connects with them it's much more likely that the feeling is genuine and natural, not coming from the pressure.
> 
> Besides, the human feelings remain the same all through the history and one would have to see no difference between artistic movement and the human element behind to say that there are things that modern people can't feel because these were felt in XIXth century. "XIXth century feelings", what a ridiculous idea.


If human thoughts and feelings stayed the same through all eras, there would not have been such style (and content) change from Medieval to renaissance to Baroque to Classical to Romantic to Modern to Contemporary.

Basic difference of opinion. I don't think the romantic era is ridiculous, but to try and 'go back' is. That does not imply at all that anyone now should write any way they want or can.

If you or anyone can write in 'Beethovenesque' and really tell us anything if not new, then 'fresh,' go for it... I've yet to hear anything at all like which does that for me, i.e. it just sounds at best like clever pastiche -- shallow, no matter how well done.


----------



## hpowders

Brahms seemed to be attempting to write "Beethovenesque" in his first symphony, but fortunately it came out "Brahms".


----------



## Aramis

PetrB said:


> If human thoughts and feelings stayed the same through all eras, there would not have been such style (and content) change from Medieval to renaissance to Baroque to Classical to Romantic to Modern to Contemporary.


That's logic for you there. Changes in art have occured not because new thoughts and feelings came to exist while the older ceased to be, it was just a matter of which of them came to the spotlight and dominated the period through the figures that embodied them. It sounds like you would see the world through the scholary definitions. Do you think that the humanity all over Western civilization in XVIIIth century felt accordingly to the artistic preferences of the time, with restrain and grace? And then, suddenly Romantic movement exploded and only then humans started to feel the "romantic way"? As far as I'm concerned, there were as many "romantics" (though not yet baptized this way) in the day of Palestrina or Haydn as in the actual Romantic period or today.


----------



## PetrB

starry said:


> So isn't it hard for performers too then, and then ultimately for listeners to receive this as well? Or do we end up being programmed well enough to understand the earlier styles as we have heard so much of it? Or at least to understand the styles from the modern perspective we receive it as.


What we listen to from the past clearly still somehow speaks directly to us of something. To me, it is all clearly dated as from the past. This includes earlier modern music, i.e. some great works from the 1970's are already now quite clearly 'from their time,' -- but are still speaking to people.

For some repertoire, a performer will have a more 'direct line' of sympathetic feeling and understanding, for other repertoire, it will take them more work to give a convincing performance, both as to style and "content." In this regard, many a performer is an actor playing a part, and very much part of that job description is to be utterly convincing whether you feel the part, 'feel like it,' or not.

If the performers have done their job to that degree of convincing, the entire audience is invited in, without worry as to 'authenticity' of what they are hearing. After that, what is received / imported to the audience is a matter of guessing about each individual in that audience.

A very common romanticized notion of performers is that they are directly tapping their personal emotions to play any music 'expressively.' That is a notion, and false. Sometimes they directly 'feel' what is conveyed, and a lot of times they don't. They are performers, after all, and to perform convincingly is their profession! Most performers are required to play a range of repertoire, some of which may be close to their heart, some as remote from their taste or emotional sphere as could be.

Those expressive performances are as much about what is technically done during the delivery as anything else -- those who have not, say, performed, or been a soloist in a concerto have no idea how much intense business is going on during that performance, a business which does not allow the performer the self-indulgent luxury to sit in a concentrated pool of their 'emotions' about the piece while it is being performed.

That romanticized notion about performers and music dies hard, because people who are the recipient listeners are so moved they just can not imagine the performers aren't somehow projecting the very emotions the audience is experiencing "into the air," as if they had great powers of ESP or as if they were true magicians.

Similarly, a composer sitting down to write cannot 'pour their emotions' into the score -- a bit of the mystery is how the music they do write does become 'expressive' of anything. Here, how much a performer brings to performing that score which does make the listener 'feel' anything can not be over-emphasized.

Direct answer to 
_"isn't it hard for performers too then..."_ 
sometimes, yes, very, and for some the most difficult will be about music furthest in the past, and for others it will be the music of their own time (the latter usually because they have trained in and dwelt upon only music of the past.)

_"and then ultimately for listeners to receive this as well?"_
The audience, no meant disrespect, sits back and enjoys the ride. (Where they are less versed, older or newer music, they are in a similar position to the performer with little or no experience in some area of the repertoire.) But generally, if the driver is competent and convincing....


----------



## PetrB

Aramis said:


> That's logic for you there. Changes in art have occured not because new thoughts and feelings came to exist while the older ceased to be, it was just a matter of which of them came to the spotlight and dominated the period through the figures that embodied them. It sounds like you would see the world through the scholary definitions. Do you think that the humanity all over Western civilization in XVIIIth century felt accordingly to the artistic preferences of the time, with restrain and grace? And then, suddenly Romantic movement exploded and only then humans started to feel the "romantic way"? As far as I'm concerned, there were as many "romantics" (though not yet baptized this way) in the day of Palestrina or Haydn as in the actual Romantic period or today.


This reminds me of KenOC's brilliant post, 
*"Martha, close the doors and shut the windows. The Dionysians and Apollonians are at it again."*

Oh lord, let's put all those who think of themselves as Romantics, and all those who think of themselves as Classicists, in the same room and let them hash out each of their revisionist takes on musicology, shall we? It is really patently absurd to say all those guys were 'romantic' simply because you or others find non-romantic era musics highly emotive / expressive. After all, even in the 20th century rep to the present, "highly emotive / expressive" is what music and musicians DO, doh!

I know leaving emotion out of the discussion just frosts the hell out of a good number of people, but those eras, dude, were set up to better distinguish the musical procedures and harmonic language of those periods, not to name the color and flavor of the emotive / expressive import.

So, Guillaume de Machaut was a romantic. Dufay was a romantic. Monteverdi and Palestrina, Gesualdo, Vivaldi, and all the rest -- romantics. Did they wear perfumes, eye-liner, mascara and eyeshadow? That, after all, is the real tip-off if they were romantic or not.

Ha Haaaaaa Haaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaa.


----------



## Aramis

PetrB said:


> It is really patently absurd to say all those guys were 'romantic' simply because you or others find non-romantic era musics highly emotive / expressive.


This is neither what I've written nor what I think. I was considering the realm of ideas and feelings outside changing artistic movements, yet you reduced them to this aspect again and written things that make me wonder how are they even a reply to what I was saying. Well, as they say, WHATEVER DUDE.


----------



## PetrB

Aramis said:


> This is neither what I've written nor what I think. I was considering the realm of ideas and feelings outside changing artistic movements, yet you reduced them to this aspect again and written things that make me wonder how are they even a reply to what I was saying. Well, as they say, WHATEVER DUDE.


Please then, what exactly are you getting at? -- maybe avoid the words "Romantic / romantic / romanticism" and still make what you want to make clear, clear?


----------



## Aramis

PetrB said:


> Please then, what exactly are you getting at? -- maybe avoid the words "Romantic / romantic / romanticism" and still make what you want to make clear, clear?


I'm getting at the fact that you seem to be implying that the things associated with the word I'm to avoid: the idealistic approach, attraction to certain themes and motives and such are as obsolete and unactual as their manifestations from XIXth century art. In a word, that if one finds himself indulging in sentimental musings on the evening outdoor walk, it's as much of unnatural repetition of past models as composing a Chopinesque nocturne which is nothing but a mimic of XIXth century style.

I, at the other hand, think that the first is natural for certain types of men, always was and always will be and that even if the person of this kind happens to be contemporary artist, it's foolish to find fault in it and suggest that in order to create something actual, non-mimicking, that part of personality has to be rooted out. First, because it could hardly happen. Secondly, because there are surely ways to express such sensivity in a manner independent enough.


----------



## Guest

Aramis said:


> That's logic for you there. Changes in art have occured not because new thoughts and feelings came to exist while the older ceased to be, it was just a matter of which of them came to the spotlight and dominated the period through the figures that embodied them.


That's an interesting ahistorical view of history, to be sure. But I'm more interested in the logic. Probably because "That's logic for you there" set me up for it. "Came to exist while older ceased to be" is not what "change" means. That's replacement.

Replacement happens, too. It's probably a sub-section of change. But it's not the same. You have taken PetrB's "change" and turned it into "replacement" and criticized him for claiming that this or that thing has been replaced by this or that other thing.

That is not what he said, however.



Aramis said:


> It sounds like you would see the world through the scholary definitions.


You say that as if it were a bad thing.

But really, here's another fallacy of misdirection. You impose a category on what PetrB said and then criticize him for thinking according to that category. Does he?



Aramis said:


> Do you think that the humanity all over Western civilization in XVIIIth century felt accordingly to the artistic preferences of the time, with restrain and grace? And then, suddenly Romantic movement exploded and only then humans started to feel the "romantic way"?


Well there's odd right there. I dunno about PetrB, but I can tell you with certain assurance that no scholar, no genuine, trained, thoughtful scholar, would think anything even close to this simplification.


----------



## PetrB

Aramis said:


> I'm getting at the fact that you seem to be implying that the things associated with the word I'm to avoid: the idealistic approach, attraction to certain themes and motives and such are as obsolete and unactual as their manifestations from XIXth century art. In a word, that if one finds himself indulging in sentimental musings on the evening outdoor walk, it's as much of unnatural repetition of past models as composing a Chopinesque nocturne which is nothing but a mimic of XIXth century style.
> 
> I, at the other hand, think that the first is natural for certain types of men, always was and always will be and that even if the person of this kind happens to be contemporary artist, it's foolish to find fault in it and suggest that in order to create something actual, non-mimicking, that part of personality has to be rooted out. First, because it could hardly happen. Secondly, because there are surely ways to express such sensitivity in a manner independent enough.


If you truly think that somehow, the musings and perceptions over an evening's walk out of doors has escaped the realm of contemporary music, I don't know WHAT can be done to disabuse you of that notion. I maintain that many, if not you, have now decided that the only possible musical expression about that evening's walk which is possible is within the parameters of one of the harmonic styles of the past (that famous movement of one of the Razumovsky quartets, for example.) Why anyone would think that an Elliott Carter piece, or something by Beat Furrer, or one of the 'new complexity' composers could not be about that same kind of walk is, truly, beyond me. I guess they think the expression of it must have a certain sound or format, which is simply not the case.

I think where I may split a big difference is that I don't need to know or care -- at all -- if that piece is about that evening walk, as long as the piece does its job on me, I don't require any extra-musical freight; in fact I believe most of the time it is 'freight' and it weighs the listener down and limits the range of their possible reactions. That is not in any way a denial of the very sort of 'content' you have named.

I nearly actually hate being literal about this highly abstract medium which has almost nothing directly parallel to do with the import or meaning of written or spoken language or images, because I believe for the listener it closes doors rather than opens them... so when there is talk of all the rest, I think it is really 'off topic.' That is just me, call it a tic, a strength, a weakness, an asset or a debit.

As to the mimic thing, I will not relent. There can be no "genuine" and direct expression from an individual so directly aping another composer's M.O. Anyone so doing is just deluding themselves. Sure it is fun, and good exercise, to fit yourself into the mentality and costume of the mind of another from another era, _but it is not at all the way to go if you wish to express your individual self._ In fact, to some degree if carried on over enough time, I believe that individual is hiding, not taking that fundamental _*risk*_ which is what every one of the great composers we admire did take, to be themselves, not directly mimic another.


----------



## Aramis

PetrB said:


> If you truly think that somehow, the musings and perceptions over an evening's walk out of doors has escaped the realm of contemporary music, I don't know WHAT can be done to disabuse you of that notion. I maintain that many, if not you, have now decided that the only possible musical expression about that evening's walk which is possible is within the parameters of one of the harmonic styles of the past (that famous movement of one of the Razumovsky quartets, for example.)


When I wrote that "there are surely ways to express such sensivity in a manner independent enough", it meant exactly the opposite of what you're implying I believe. That one CAN express "these things" that many associate solely with romantic period in artistic language that doesn't cross the line of being too obsolete. Again, the very source of this discussion was your suggestion that certain feelings and ideas, not the way of expressing them, are obsolete and have no place in art anymore - _"it is pretty hard to replicate the weltschmerz or sentiments of yesteryear, because you had to be a part of that era to have those genuine"_. There is nothing to replicate about Weltschmerz, it's just a term behind which you find a ever-existent feeling that modern writer can express without creating anything like _Sufferings of Young Werther Vol. II_ and aping the style of Goethe.


----------



## PetrB

Aramis said:


> There is nothing to replicate about Weltschmerz, it's just a term behind which you find a ever-existent feeling that modern writer can express without creating anything like _Sufferings of Young Werther Vol. II_ and aping the style of Goethe.


Well, exactly. It is today's Weltschmerz, with a different tone, look and feel than the same general idea as happened one or two hundred years ago.

To go to the style of one or two hundred years ago to express something like that -- let alone trying to replicate it exactly -- is more than just a little likely a complete mistake. The posturing to 'go back' to the old styles _is a posture_, disingenuous.

To 'play' with some of those elements and yet make something new of it is far more difficult, takes more inventiveness, bravery to make _and to take the risk_, and usually ends up, even if rather flawed, as genuine.

The difference between one and the other is critical.

Ergo, my frustration and extreme irritation with those who simplify the (mistaken) goal in thinking by simply returning to the harmonic vocabulary and procedures of the past that that will, of itself, satisfy the requirement.

Part of the issue here, I think, is that some young people (I'm sure I was guilty of it when young) are prone to thinking their emotions, experiences, are unique to them, and that all of mankind has not yet known similar emotions and experiences, while in fact much of mankind has already had such experiences, often deeper, more profound and many times over. The young people so affected have no idea how not newsworthy their (first) experiences are, and when they get that reaction, of course they are personally hurt or somehow angrily disaffected.

In hindsight, this is rather endearingly funny. I'm sure if young and in the now, it is a horrible realization to find you are either not that interesting, or you have some craft but really nothing yet interesting to say. In its active state of youthful blissful unawareness, though, it is just unrealistic for the world around them to respond with much more than a "heh, heh, what's new or of any real interest about that?"


----------



## science

PetrB said:


> The posturing ... _is a posture_, disingenuous.


This goes in a totally different direction, but IMO this is ok. Postures are ok. One of those perhaps-unfortunate facts about human life that at some time we have to make peace with is that disingenuousness is inevitable, we are all actors in our own various little dramas, and that (stealing a lovely metaphor from Rilke) if we actually try to take off all our masks, we eventually find that we're scraping away at our faces. Humans are way too complex for there to be a simple core of integrity that we can bare with naked honesty to the world. It's layers all the way down, deceits and conceits too subtle for anyone to untangle. And those layers are what we actually are.


----------



## Guest

Wow.

Well, if I had said what PetrB just said--and when I read it, I wished that I _had_ said it--and then read this exceptionally insightful comment by science, well, I would wonder why I hadn't thought of this aspect of things.

Indeed, I am wondering now why I hadn't thought of this aspect of things.

"It's layers all the way down..., and those layers are what we actually are."

Yep. I have to say, that really does seem to capture the larger reality most accurately.

The posing is in this instance a bad thing, I still think. In this instance. But to support that, I would have to come up with some reason why this instance is bad. And I have other work to do with my brain. There's only so much....*

Anyway, this comment of science's reminds me of things that Richard Lanham has said about writing. (I know of no one else so consistently reliable as Lanham about writing.) Anyway, I know that PetrB and I have been at odds with many things that science has said in the past. I have to acknowledge that this is not one of them.

*This is such an obvious cop-out. I'm surprised that I would have the temerity to use it.


----------



## starry

What about the layers that other people put on you without your agreement? That's at least as important. But really I don't get this idea that everyone on a music forum is just posturing, some people really do like what they say they do or dislike what they say they don't. And some do listen to music and think about music as they write about it. Obviously it's all done in a conscious way because if you write about something you are also very aware of it as well. That could be a good thing though.


----------



## Flamme




----------



## Blake

starry said:


> What about the layers that other people put on you without your agreement? That's at least as important. But really I don't get this idea that everyone on a music forum is just posturing, some people really do like what they say they do or dislike what they say they don't. And some do listen to music and think about music as they write about it. Obviously it's all done in a conscious way because if you write about something you are also very aware of it as well. That could be a good thing though.


It would be pretty pitiful if the majority were posturing, but I think most users here are really saying what they feel. Why the hell not? I've talked quite openly that I originally didn't understand Mahler or the composers of the Second Viennese School, but now have fully immersed myself in these styles because of the knowledge of other users here. It's absurd that people need to turn everything into some sort of ego measuring-stick.

If people only knew how obvious their insecurities were when they try to "act the part" for some sort of arbitrary status.


----------



## PetrB

some guy said:


> Wow.
> 
> Well, if I had said what PetrB just said--and when I read it, I wished that I _had_ said it--and then read this exceptionally insightful comment by science, well, I would wonder why I hadn't thought of this aspect of things.
> 
> Indeed, I am wondering now why I hadn't thought of this aspect of things.
> 
> "It's layers all the way down..., and those layers are what we actually are."
> 
> Yep. I have to say, that really does seem to capture the larger reality most accurately.
> 
> The posing is in this instance a bad thing, I still think. In this instance. But to support that, I would have to come up with some reason why this instance is bad. And I have other work to do with my brain. There's only so much....*
> 
> Anyway, this comment of science's reminds me of things that Richard Lanham has said about writing. (I know of no one else so consistently reliable as Lanham about writing.) Anyway, I know that PetrB and I have been at odds with many things that science has said in the past. I have to acknowledge that this is not one of them.
> 
> *This is such an obvious cop-out. I'm surprised that I would have the temerity to use it.


When you, Science and I agree it could almost worry some people, I think. The layers (did anyone else first get their layers of the onion parable from C.S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles?) is more than apt. I am also a huge fan of Rilke 

Trying on costumes, handwriting, personae as part and parcel of a healthy and driving curiosity it is to be hoped is part of anyone's youth, to be certain, and not a bad thing for anyone to check now and then as time goes on.

Being an old-school conservative sorta guy, it should come as no surprise that I think any individual -- or at least those who have any hopes to make creativity a full-time endeavor -- has a near absolute obligation to get as near as possible to the point of scraping away at their face in order to get to that pith of things within their self so basic to all that they have something worth communicating to that same pith beneath the masks of others.

Of course our layers and masks are necessary for some matters of daily survival, while others can be downright good fun. But first that near raw scrape, if not bloody then at least enough to weep a bit of lymph, so you are first Mozart, rather than a person named Mozart better known for your expensive and beautiful red coat than for your music.

Very few are simultaneously brilliant and simple enough to have the channel to 'the source' (whatever and wherever that is) already set on open and full reception. Posing, unless you stumble upon that source by trying out different roles, is a cumbersome and less likely way to access that source.


----------



## PetrB

starry said:


> What about the layers that other people put on you without your agreement?


Unless those applying those layers have some extremely magic glue, whatever is imposed falls off at a more rapid rate than your own dead skin cells. For those imposed fictions, continuing to be yourself is all that is needed.


----------



## arpeggio

*Harsh reality*

The OP is from an earnest and sincere individual who would like to try to be a real composer.

Those of us here who have had actual experiences in the real musical world, including a lowly amateur like myself, realize the harsh realities.

One of the big misconceptions that some have is that somehow the music of the past is better than the music of today. The facts are that for every Mozart there are a thousand Salieri's that have been forgotten and for good reasons. We only hear the top .1% that has survived the test of time. 99.9% of the music composed in the 19th century was garbage. We just very rarely hear it.

A person who wants to be the next Schoenberg or even the next Cage is going to face the same obstacles as the person who wants to be the next Beethoven. Just like Beethoven, there can only be one Schoenberg or Cage. Once Cage created 4'33", no one else could do it.

If a person could make money sounding like Beethoven, there would be a thousand Beethoven wanna be's out there.

Can a person become the next Beethoven? The odds are against it. Sorry. The simple answer is no.


----------



## hpowders

The OP may be trying to be a "real composer". That's fine. But becoming Beethoven is impossible. There was only one.

He can try and become "me" too. But he will also fail. Each of us is unique whether we are ordinary or extraordinary folk.


----------



## Guest

"You are all individuals."

"We are all individuals."

("I'm not.")


----------



## hpowders

I expect my great great grandchildren will be posting here one day on this thread.


----------



## brianvds

hpowders said:


> The OP may be trying to be a "real composer". That's fine. But becoming Beethoven is impossible. There was only one.
> 
> He can try and become "me" too. But he will also fail. Each of us is unique whether we are ordinary or extraordinary folk.


It is in any event better to be a first rate Itsik than a second rate Beethoven. And we can all console ourselves with the thought that Beethoven couldn't possibly have been any of us either.


----------



## hpowders

brianvds said:


> It is in any event better to be a first rate Itsik than a second rate Beethoven. And we can all console ourselves with the thought that Beethoven couldn't possibly have been any of us either.


I have better teeth than Beethoven. I'm sure we all smell better too. Back then, folks took baths "infrequently".

One day I may be posting under "Listening Now"-"The complete piano concertos of Itsik; Modernism at its best."


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> Back then, folks took baths "infrequently".


Easy to say. Difficult to document. Certainly total immersion was hard to accomplish in certain places and at certain times of year. But everyone has always washed pretty regularly--so far as can be determined, anyway.

See mythbusters Myth #61 for details.


----------



## Flamme

I think they just used a lot of soap on a dry body and parfumes.


----------



## hpowders

Could explain why no female ever got involved in a really close relationship with The Man.


----------



## Guest

Yes. That is why none of us were ever born!

Of course. It all makes sense, now.

We're not real. We're a dream in some person's imagination. (A bather, of course!)


----------



## starry

PetrB said:


> Unless those applying those layers have some extremely magic glue, whatever is imposed falls off at a more rapid rate than your own dead skin cells. For those imposed fictions, continuing to be yourself is all that is needed.


Unless you live on an island like Robinson Crusoe I don't think you can escape the influence of other people on your life, however strong your own identity is for yourself. I wonder what would have happened to Beethoven had he not had the great musical talent he had, perhaps his life would have been shorter, certainly far worse anyhow.


----------



## hpowders

He might have become a professional bowler. Who knows?


----------



## Blake

starry said:


> Unless you live on an island like Robinson Crusoe I don't think you can escape the influence of other people on your life, however strong your own identity is for yourself. I wonder what would have happened to Beethoven had he not had the great musical talent he had, perhaps his life would have been shorter, certainly far worse anyhow.


Influences are one thing, but I think he was talking more about undesirable impositions.


----------



## hpowders

Whew!! I thought this thread actually disappeared!! Happy returns!!


----------



## hpowders

OP: I already told you, *NO!!!*

But you didn't seem to hear me, so perhaps the answer is *YES!!!*


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I tried making out I was the reincarnated Varese when I first joined this site but no one believed me-Ye have little faith.......


----------



## hpowders

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> *I tried making out* I was the reincarnated Varese when I first joined this site but no one believed me-Ye have little faith.......


You shoulda quit after your fourth word!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

hpowders said:


> You shoulda quit after your fourth word!


But that would be Taboo in most societies......


----------



## eugeneonagain

My old piano tutor use to wake me up in the mornings (yes I used to stay over at his house, sounds creepy I know) playing Tchaikovsky's 1st concerto and the piano would bang into the wall. When I congratulated his playing he would say: "It's not me, it's Felix!" 
He always said this and when I questioned him on it this 'Felix' turned out to be the fairly unknown Felix Weingartner. He had been at concert of Weingartner's just before he died and he believed that upon Weingartner's death his spirit had entered his body. The 'reasoning' behind this was that he had been struggling in his piano studies and after Weingartner's death he had remembered him and suddenly started improving dramatically.

Now I don't actually believe this, but his delusion somehow - according to him - made him succeed and he really believed that he carried Weingartner's musical spirit which was activated when he played. He was raving mad though.


----------



## hpowders

OP: When you were just a wee laddie, I told you that you can be anything you want to be.

I say, go for it son!!!


----------



## Klassik

eugeneonagain said:


> My old piano tutor use to wake me up in the mornings (yes I used to stay over at his house, sounds creepy I know) playing Tchaikovsky's 1st concerto and the piano would bang into the wall. When I congratulated his playing he would say: "It's not me, it's Felix!"
> He always said this and when I questioned him on it this 'Felix' turned out to be the fairly unknown Felix Weingartner. He had been at concert of Weingartner's just before he died and he believed that upon Weingartner's death his spirit had entered his body. The 'reasoning' behind this was that he had been struggling in his piano studies and after Weingartner's death he had remembered him and suddenly started improving dramatically.


Hey, it could have been worse. Rossini's harpsichord teacher, Prinetti, would fall asleep while standing up. Coincidentally, Prinetti also had another job in the liquor business. Who would have guessed?


----------



## hpowders

I nominate this thread title for "Best in Show"!!! :lol::lol:


----------



## Bettina

Wow, all this is making me feel much better about my abilities as a piano teacher! Even on my worst days, I don't channel dead people and I don't fall asleep during lessons. I guess I'm doing an OK job after all! :lol:


----------



## Klassik

Bettina said:


> Wow, all this is making me feel much better about my abilities as a piano teacher! Even on my worst days, I don't channel dead people and I don't fall asleep during lessons. I guess I'm doing an OK job after all! :lol:


But you can become like Beethoven and _allegedly_ bite your students if they make a mistake! :lol:


----------



## Bettina

Klassik said:


> But you can become like Beethoven and _allegedly_ bite your students if they make a mistake! :lol:


Maybe I'll start wearing earplugs when I teach so that I can feel exactly like Beethoven. Then I can be blissfully ignorant of any wrong notes that my students might play...:lol:


----------



## AfterHours

Bettina said:


> Even on my worst days, I don't channel dead people


Damn, Ive been had! You sure about this _Bettina_!? All this time ... And now you tell me!? :lol:


----------



## Bettina

AfterHours said:


> Damn, Ive been had! You sure about this _Bettina_!? All this time ... And now you tell me!? :lol:


LOL! I tried to be careful with the phrasing of my post to say that I don't channel dead people during lessons. When I'm on TC, that's another story. On here, I'm Beethoven's dead lover (or at least friend)! :lol:


----------



## AfterHours

Bettina said:


> Maybe I'll start wearing earplugs when I teach so that I can feel exactly like Beethoven. Then I can be blissfully ignorant of any wrong notes that my students might play...:lol:


After all...

"To play the wrong note is insignificant..."


----------



## Bettina

AfterHours said:


> After all...
> 
> "To play the wrong note is insignificant..."


He wouldn't have said that if he could hear some of the clunkers that my students play!! :lol:


----------



## AfterHours

Bettina said:


> LOL! I tried to be careful with the phrasing of my post to say that I don't channel dead people during lessons. When I'm on TC, that's another story. On here, I'm Beethoven's dead lover (or at least friend)! :lol:


Oh thank you, that's relieving to know... 

(behind the smile and wink: ) :lol:


----------



## dillonp2020

To become Beethoven you must do one thing, go nuts. If you become crazy (a true hallmark of great composers), and think yourself Beethoven, then you will, for all of your intents and purposes, be Beethoven. Now if you're just an absolutely mad composer, you might share more in common with Schumann.


----------



## AfterHours

Bettina said:


> LOL! I tried to be careful with the phrasing of my post to say that I don't channel dead people during lessons. When I'm on TC, that's another story. On here, I'm Beethoven's dead lover (or at least friend)! :lol:


Though I now know who to look for should Beethoven ever turn up missing from the graveyard, in all fairness, I shouldn't be one to talk: http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0088680/synopsis


----------



## mathisdermaler

TOO MANY NOTES with fifteen characters


----------



## mathisdermaler

I like the 2nd mvt a lot more! Actually very good. It's very difficult to enjoy because of the electronic instruments, but obviously that is no fault of your own.


----------



## Pugg

Bettina said:


> Maybe I'll start wearing earplugs when I teach so that I can feel exactly like Beethoven. Then I can be blissfully ignorant of any wrong notes that my students might play...:lol:


You just nod from time to time and all will be okay.


----------



## hpowders

OP: You can be anything you set your mind to, as your councelor told you in third grade. I assume after years of listening to acid rock, you are already practically deaf, so at least you got that major hurdle out of the way. Now start working on your counterpoint exercises!!


----------



## Pugg

Poor O.P never been seen again .


----------



## hpowders

OP: If you are no longer here on TC, simply ignore my previous post*.


* Like everybody else!!! :lol:


----------



## Razumovskymas

Bettina said:


> Maybe I'll start wearing earplugs when I teach so that I can feel exactly like Beethoven. Then I can be blissfully ignorant of any wrong notes that my students might play...:lol:


He had tinnitus too!

I thinks that's mainly the cause of the Grosse Fugue


----------



## Razumovskymas

BTW Beethoven only got angry when there was a lack of expression, not when he heard wrong notes.

Still some work Bettina! :lol:


----------



## Razumovskymas

Or he just didn't hear them of course 

Silly me! Only now it gets clear to me, thanks for that!


----------



## Pugg

Razumovskymas said:


> BTW Beethoven only got angry when there was a lack of expression, not when he heard wrong notes.
> 
> Still some work Bettina! :lol:


I am sure Bettina could teach him/ her a thing or two .


----------



## Bettina

Pugg said:


> I am sure Bettina could teach him/ her a thing or two .


I always try to stay calm, patient and cheerful when I hear my students play wrong notes - I encouragingly point out what the student did right, and then I gently correct the mistake. However, this state of calm patience would be much easier to achieve if I were deaf!! :lol:


----------



## Pugg

Bettina said:


> I always try to stay calm, patient and cheerful when I hear my students play wrong notes - I encouragingly point out what the student did right, and then I gently correct the mistake. However, this state of calm patience would be much easier to achieve if I were deaf!! :lol:


I would take lesson from you and we could do Mozart/ Schubert for four hands . :clap:


----------



## Bettina

Pugg said:


> I would take lesson from you and we could do Mozart/ Schubert for four hands . :clap:


I would love to do that! It's too bad that we're separated by an ocean...if only we lived in the same area, we would definitely have a wonderful time playing piano duets. Let me know if you ever come to California - and of course I'll contact you if I ever have the opportunity to visit The Netherlands.


----------



## Pugg

Bettina said:


> I would love to do that! It's too bad that we're separated by an ocean...if only we lived in the same area, we would definitely have a wonderful time playing piano duets. Let me know if you ever come to California - and of course I'll contact you if I ever have the opportunity to visit The Netherlands.


Member Azol is ( if we all well that is) coming to Holland 2020 for the Mahler feast.
I did see Sospiro ( an old member ) once in Amsterdam with some other forum members but we did not speak .


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

If you become Beethoven, can I become Jimi Hendrix or Peter Green........


----------



## Pugg

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> If you become Beethoven, can I become Jimi Hendrix or Peter Green........


One vacancy left: Varese


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Pugg said:


> One vacancy left: Varese


I tried the reincarnated version but couldn't hack it


----------



## KenOC

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> If you become Beethoven, can I become Jimi Hendrix or Peter Green........


I wanna be Warren Buffet, for long enough to make a bank withdrawal. After that, I'll be happy to revert.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

KenOC said:


> I wanna be Warren Buffet, for long enough to make a bank withdrawal. After that, I'll be happy to revert.


Then you could make a donation to a poor staving Jimi


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

How to become Beethoven:

1. Be as grumpy as possible. Get angry as much as you can. Scream and shout and smash stuff. Let out all that inner rage.

2. Drop all concern for appearance and tidiness. Go outdoors dressed like a hobo. Never brush your hair. Let your home become one that's so messy it looks post-apocalyptic.

3. Lose your hearing.

4. ??????

5. PROFIT???


----------



## Pugg

Abraham Lincoln said:


> How to become Beethoven:
> 
> 1. Be as grumpy as possible. Get angry as much as you can. Scream and shout and smash stuff. Let out all that inner rage.
> 
> 2. Drop all concern for appearance and tidiness. Go outdoors dressed like a hobo. Never brush your hair. Let your home become one that's so messy it looks post-apocalyptic.
> 
> 3. Lose your hearing.
> 
> 4. ??????
> 
> 5. PROFIT???


Ever lasting fame and adoration.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> If you become Beethoven, can I become Jimi Hendrix or Peter Green........


I'm going to be Mendelssohn


----------



## hpowders

Abraham Lincoln said:


> I'm going to be Mendelssohn


Would it be worth losing your sister-your best friend-which will hasten your own death, dying two months later, still at a relatively young age (38)?


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

hpowders said:


> Would it be worth losing your sister-your best friend-which will hasten your own death, dying two months later, still at a relatively young age (38)?


I am physically and mentally prepared for death through stress and overwork.
(In fact that is actually how I want to die.)


----------



## Pugg

Abraham Lincoln said:


> I am physically and mentally prepared for death through stress and overwork.
> (In fact that is actually how I want to die.)


Vissi d'arte........


----------



## hpowders

Abraham Lincoln said:


> I am physically and mentally prepared for death through stress and overwork.
> (In fact that is actually how I want to die.)


That's nice to hear, but why don't you try and be Beethoven? A quantum leap over being Mendelssohn....you could even change your avatar. Muttonchops are so yesterday!


----------



## arpeggio

It seems to me that if someone is smart enough to become another Beethoven they would be smart enough to know they should not.


----------



## Pugg

arpeggio said:


> It seems to me that if someone is smart enough to become another Beethoven they would be smart enough to know they should not.


Someone with some kind of sense. :tiphat:


----------



## Marinera

hpowders said:


> That's nice to hear, but why don't you try and be Beethoven? A quantum leap over being Mendelssohn....you could even change your avatar. Muttonchops are so yesterday!


Not everybody worships the same gods here on TC.

Though seriously this thread from a beginning to end is so si fi.. oh right, what end..


----------



## jdec

Abraham Lincoln said:


> How to become Beethoven:
> 
> 1. Be as grumpy as possible. Get angry as much as you can. Scream and shout and smash stuff. Let out all that inner rage.
> 
> 2. Drop all concern for appearance and tidiness. Go outdoors dressed like a hobo. Never brush your hair. Let your home become one that's so messy it looks post-apocalyptic.
> 
> 3. Lose your hearing.
> 
> 4. ??????
> 
> 5. PROFIT???


You missed the only important one:

6. Compose some of the greatest music ever.


----------



## hpowders

Marinera said:


> Not everybody worships the same gods here on TC.
> 
> Though seriously this thread from a beginning to end is so si fi.. oh right, what end..


Yes. I can't stand Liszt, Bruckner and Schubert. Doesn't make me a bad person....*but it could.*


----------



## Marinera

hpowders said:


> Yes. I can't stand Liszt, Bruckner and Schubert. Doesn't make me a bad person....*but it could*.


This just begs for the shrieking violins from Psycho :lol:


----------



## hpowders

Abraham Lincoln said:


> I am physically and mentally prepared for death through stress and overwork.
> (In fact that is actually how I want to die.)


 Mendelssohn died at 38....but Mozart died at 35.


----------



## hpowders

Marinera said:


> This just begs for the shrieking violins from Psycho :lol:


When I was 8 years old, that's how my violin sounded, so I gave it up. I didn't realize I could have had a lucrative career as a movie soundtrack violinist.


----------

