# Styles of music, old versus new, which has more value today?



## MarkMcD

Hi all,

Let me start by saying that I don't want this to be a confrontational thread, I'm starting it because I would just like to know what people think about this question.

Having read a few comments here and there, I have noticed that those of us who don't write what is considered music of the 21st century, tend to have their creations valued below that of those who write more contemporary pieces.

I read one comment in particular that basically asked if the world really needed more "nice" music. I don't think this was meant to be offensive, and I suppose it is a valid question. So I thought I might like to know what the general consensus is.

I myself tend to write the sort of music I love to hear and love to play, and that is of the classical and romantic era. I personally find a lot of modernist music cold, unemotional even remote and elitist at times (that is just my opinion). Not all of it I have to say, but especially the atonal compositions do very little to make me smile and to feel anything that is deeply connected to my soul. It might be very cleverly constructed, but it is not something that I personally can enjoy, or feel transported to another plane almost, as when I listen to Mozart or Beethoven or the like.

I know that the name of this part of the forum is "Today's Composers", but does that really mean that everything here has to be "Today's Music"?

Is there really less value to a beautiful composition that has at it's heart, the more traditional sounds of music from the 19th century, than that of a more 21st century composition.

The question of "originality" can't really be considered as even in more modernist music, 90 odd % of it is not "original" in the strictest sense of the word.

I really feel that the only reason that any artist should be creating whatever it is that they create, is because that is what they feel in their soul, and that they have a desire to make it concrete in some way, the rest, financial gain, fame, validation from your peers and/or the general public, is incidental to the creation of a thing of beauty, and if what you do is done for this reason, should it really be considered somehow less important because it is not rooted in the more modernist movement, i.e. if it is reminiscent of the 19th century style of music?

I suppose that in the end, what I would like, is to have this style of music assessed on it's own merits. Is it a good composition or is it mediocre or bad, and why is it such? In order for me to learn how to make it better, and not to learn how to make it MODERN.

After all, what I have in my soul, is not modern and it never will be, but should we give up doing what we do because of this? Can we not learn to improve what we do whilst staying true to ourselves and not feeling that because we are not modernists, that we have no place here, or in the world of music.

You might say that "This is not a place for "pastiche" and so if you want to have your music valued by your peers, then go to a place where your style of music is more appreciated" And you would be perfectly justified in saying this, and I have no argument with this way of thinking. I just think it's a shame for all of who don't feel we want or are not able to conform to the modernist style because that is not what is in our hearts (yes getting a bit slushy now, but I hope you can appreciate my meaning).

Anyway, what do you think?


----------



## Vasks

The answer is actually very simple. If Mozart had composed only in the style of Bach would we adore Mozart? If Mahler composed symphonies in the style of Beethoven would we love him? The answer is no.

Art music is in part about expressing yourself; your feelings and your thoughts. When you merely imitate you are not doing so. And if you are not doing so, why should serious Classical listeners care enough to want you to do more of the same. You need to find your own voice. It doesn't have to be original/innovative; But merely imitating an older style doesn't cut it. Have you really heard contemporary composers on record or live at a concert that was exclusively pastiche? I haven't.


----------



## MarkMcD

Hi Vasks,

No I haven't, but that is at least a part of my point. Most contemporary composers are not pastiche in as much as they sound nothing like 19th century composers, but often I think they do sound much like each other. When I write, I'm not attempting to be pastiche, I'm not trying to imitate, I'm trying to create something that I feel is beautiful, obviously my influences are my prefered composers but I always try to have my own voice, however it just so happens that when I finish, it has the feel of music that is of a particular style that isn't considered modern. But is it less beautiful because it is not modern?

Would you go only once to an art gallery, and because you've seen everything they have, never return because you don't wish to see more of same? Or do you just like looking at the work simply because it is beautiful and not think to devalue it only because someone else did something similar?

My thought is that amateurs like myself are generally not TRYING to be inferior copies of something or someone past, we are just expressing what we have in our souls if you like, and we are (or I am) very much in the learning stages still. I personally spend a lot of time trying to take out and refine bits of my music that I consider, for want of a better word, unoriginal or pastiche, but it still remains that "my voice", is not a modern one and I don't think ever will be. Should I just stop?

I personally don't listen to music simply because I must always hear something new. Is that your definition of a "serious classical listener"? Do serious classical listeners not also enjoy music merely for it's own sake and not always have to compare it something else, and even when compared and found to be similar in style to something else, reject it and feel it is not beautiful? 

I do completely understand your point about Mozart only writing in the style of Bach and so on, but even Mozart learned from Bach and Haydn, and Beethoven from Mozart, etc., each adding to and developing what already existed. In my own way, I'm trying to do just that, it just so happens that much of the 21st century music does not inspire me, and so where should I start? Should I bother at all if I cannot adapt myself to what is considered modern?


----------



## Vasks

Since I have little time or even inclination to keep discussing this topic I'll address only the latest points you brought up. After this I'll let others have their say if they want.



MarkMcD said:


> Most contemporary composers are not pastiche in as much as they sound nothing like 19th century composers, but often I think they do sound much like each other.


Of course a lot of contemporary composers sound similar. It's about living in a specific "point in time" and how people think and feel musically in that "point in time". Secondary contemporaries of Mozart sounded somewhat like him, and secondary contemporaries of Brahms sounded somewhat like him. It's what it is in the time period "air".



MarkMcD said:


> When I write, I'm not attempting to be pastiche, I'm not trying to imitate, I'm trying to create something that I feel is beautiful, obviously my influences are my prefered composers but I always try to have my own voice, however it just so happens that when I finish, it has the feel of music that is of a particular style that isn't considered modern. But is it less beautiful because it is not modern?


If you're not trying that's a good start, but once you realize that the final result sounds like an older style that means you did not consciously tried to be your own self. The question of beauty is the real rub. Sure what you write may be considered beautiful, by some, heck maybe even many, but does the Classical music world of players and listeners take such pieces seriously. That is where I am coming from. And many of the amateur TC composer posters that do come here do want to be taken seriously (even those that say they don't, deep down do. (_And who can blame them_?)



MarkMcD said:


> My thought is that amateurs like myself are generally not TRYING to be inferior copies of something or someone past, we are just expressing what we have in our souls if you like, and we are (or I am) very much in the learning stages still. I personally spend a lot of time trying to take out and refine bits of my music that I consider, for want of a better word, unoriginal or pastiche, but it still remains that "my voice", is not a modern one and I don't think ever will be. Should I just stop?


You don't have to stop. You just have to realize that the real world of contemporary Classical music is not interested in imitation regardless of whether some consider it beautiful. You can write something beautiful without it sounding like someone 100 years ago.



MarkMcD said:


> I personally don't listen to music simply because I must always hear something new. Is that your definition of a "serious classical listener"? Do serious classical listeners not also enjoy music merely for it's own sake and not always have to compare it something else, and even when compared and found to be similar in style to something else, reject it and feel it is not beautiful?


Now you're drifting toward the concept that everything must be "new". I've already addressed that in my first post.



MarkMcD said:


> I do completely understand your point about Mozart only writing in the style of Bach and so on, but even Mozart learned from Bach and Haydn, and Beethoven from Mozart, etc., each adding to and developing what already existed. In my own way, I'm trying to do just that, it just so happens that much of the 21st century music does not inspire me, and so where should I start? Should I bother at all if I cannot adapt myself to what is considered modern?


Since you admit you understand my points about Mozart not being like Bach (etc) then I don't see why you refuse to accept it as a valid point for today's composers. I can't tell you where to start. You have to figure that out on your own.

Finally, so you can see where I am coming from I'll tell a bit more about myself. I started composing when I was about 16 years old. I never once in those earliest days ever tried to compose in an older style. The thought never crossed my mind. So I can not relate to those amateur composers that believe you first start out by imitating Mozart, or whoever, then evolve into something contemporary. And over the past 50 years, I have been constantly seeking performances, recordings, publications, etc in the real "music world". It's tough, because there are literally 1000's upon 1000's of us around the globe seeking the same thing while there are NOT 1000's upon 1000's of opportunities, but it is rewarding when I connect. I have yet to see it happen at all to those that do pastiche.


----------



## nikola

Many of the 'modern' classical music is not modern at all. It's simply lost in its own pretending that there is no other modern music out there than modern classical music. Back in the time of Bach and after that Beethoven and even Mahler when probably the only other music people could hear is some church or folk music, those classical composers actually meant something. They were important. In 20th century there was emerging something else and that is popular music. It started as mix of jazz, blues, cabaret, gospel, etc. and later it turned into pop and r'n'r music.
So, when we talk about modern music, I think that Glenn Miller, The Beatles and ABBA were actually much more important to the evolution of music of our time than any modern classical composer, especially today when the idea of modern classical music goes mostly in completely different direction than popular music that represents the mentality and atmosphere of our time. 
That doesn't mean that modern classical music is bad. It only means that it isn't important the way it used to be in the 19th century. Parallel evolution of music simply ate direction of classical music.

I agree that anyone should compose whatever the hell he/she wants. I'm amateur composer, but I also compose what seems interesting or good to me. Someone more advanced considering playing and composing like you MarkMcD should not be worried with such questions too much. In my opinion, trying to copy other artists and always worrying too much to keep everything perfect on technical and 'theory' level is not the meaning of the music. Everyone should try to find their own voice, no matter what style. Everyone should enjoy in the process of making music. 
I find your "Lucia's Waltz" to be very fun and vibrant piece of music and I think that with such obvious creativity you should not let yourself become lost in the idea of complicating things that should be simple, because you can easily destroy your own inspiration only to please someone else. 
If you feel that something sounds 'right' when you compose it, there is no need then to try to complicate the idea of it too much. 
I was also 'accusing' one board member that his music sound somehow pastiche even though he is pretty much great at composing, but I realized that such approach did more harm than anything good because there is nobody who can tell you what you should compose if you feel that the style you're in suits you. 

I don't know what my style is. Probably some simplistic pop form on piano. I am composing occasionally in last 2 years and I don't have any musical education at all. Should I worry? Of course not. I'm doing it for my own enjoyment and if I like what I compose, that is the most important. I don't feel the need to justify any of my too minimalistic piece of music. 

Sometimes we should not complicate too much the term 'music' and the idea what it is or what it should be, because everybody has his own idea what music is. 
I think that anyone has the right to post their music here, no matter what style it is. I think that especially it is not important to anyone here will they hear baroque, classical, romantic, modern or some hybrid style.


----------



## MarkMcD

Vasks said:


> Since I have little time or even inclination to keep discussing this topic I'll address only the latest points you brought up. After this I'll let others have their say if they want.
> 
> I seem to have annoyed you Vasks and that was not my intention at all. Neither was it my intention to single out any particular member when I posed the question so please dear chap, don't feel obliged to spare another key stroke on the matter. I will just say that I do believe you are right in regards to the question of "value" to the classical music establishment, of music that is not of a current style. We will never be commissioned for a piece or become famous from our work, if we persist in the our chosen styles of writing, but that is not why I do it. I believe that after years of doing what I do, I really am doing it in "my own voice" albeit reminiscent of a bygone era. I think it is worthwhile to remember that I am not a professional by any stretch of the imagination, and neither are lots of folks here I suspect, and our aims in joining a forum, are possibly quite different form those who are professional, or at least working in the field and making a success of it. I do respect your point of view and even agree with parts of it, just not all of it, but that's ok, we are all adults and can agree to disagree with no harm done. Thank you for you input.
> 
> Nikola, Thank you too for your input, I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. I will also say that I didn't start this thread because I felt mistreated here in any way, mostly folks have been very kind to me and I really appreciate it. Thank you also for your kind words on my last piece. I am always thrilled when someone likes what I've done (as are we all).
> 
> I, like a lot of folks here, have no formal training to speak of, having only taken a few years of piano lessons as a child, and after years of tinkering with composition, solely for my own entertainment, I just felt that I would like to know if anyone else considered that I might have a little talent for it. I was never going to stop doing what I do, even if I had received bad reviews, I just thought it would be nice to know that I had progressed a little since I started, to a state where others might enjoy listening to some of my work. In that way I would receive some validation from my peers, as I don't really know personally, any other musicians to show my work to. And, I have to say that I have received some really nice feedback from the folks here. I honestly never want to be famous (just as well lol), but I suppose, like most composers, amateur or professional, that having a piece played by a real orchestra would be a dream come true, but I do accept that there is very little chance of that ever happening since my work is not of the sort that is required by any professional or semi-professional orchestra. It was never a serious goal of mine, merely a dream. Even if just one person says that they think I have some talent, then that really is enough for me, and I want to say a serious thank you to those who have done just that.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

It doesn't matter how biased you may be towards the "classical masters" new music is what is relevant and "valuable" in the modern society. This doesn't take away any emotional value or personal love you may have towards older music but it is exactly as it is "old". 
Even "contemporary classical music" is getting less relevant because it's not adapting (in general) to the world it lives in.


----------



## Torkelburger

I feel that Aaron Copland said it well in the chapter titled "Contemporary Music" from his book _What to Listen for in Music_: "My love of the music of Chopin and Mozart is as strong as that of the next fellow, but it does me little good when I sit down to write my own, because their world is not mine and their musical language not mine." Just as you have no choice but to be a product of your own time, you have no choice but to have a musical language of your own time whether you deliberately use it or not (unless you live in a cave on Mars with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears) and using a musical language exclusively of the past is not using the language of your own.

As for finding a lot of modern music cold and intellectual Copland writes: "...ask yourself if you are not using standards of comparison that really do not apply. Most music lovers do not appreciate to what an extent they are under the spell of the romantic approach to music. Our audiences have come to identify nineteenth-century musical romanticism as analogous to the art of music itself. Because romanticism was, and still remains, so powerful an expression, they tend to forget that great music was written for hundreds of years before the romantics flourished."


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

Daniel Atkinson said:


> Even "contemporary classical music" is getting less relevant because it's not adapting (in general) to the world it lives in.


I'll expand on that:

The music is aesthetically in the right direction but it seems that there aren't many contemporary music taking from "popular" idioms, like many composers like Bartok or Ligeti took from folk music.

Classical music in general also tries to market and appeal to much towards intellectual audiences and academic venues. These markets just aren't where the majority of younger people go. If you market something as (to quote Torkelburger) "cold and intellectual" people will perceive it as that.

Then there is also the issue of the age old elitism which needs to stop. Classical music is not above any other genre, the fact that it's more complex and dynamic doesn't change that. All the structural technicalities and thematic development in the world doesn't make something more appealing than e.g. a rock song or a pop song. 
I see people using that as a reason why "classical music is objectively greater" but it simply is a false dichotomy that doesn't matter to the general modern music listener.

Beethoven and Mozart (the most widely praised in the genre) are seen by the common man as simply elevator music, TV ad music, study music or music for their baby's to listen to. This doesn't mean that these praised composers are worthless, but the line of relatability and perception HAS changed


----------



## Pugg

To quote nikola

_Many of the 'modern' classical music is not modern at all. It's simply lost in its own pretending that there is no other modern music out there than modern classical music._
I totally agree, just take a look at the Todays composer thread, the all sound like imitators.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

Pugg said:


> To quote nikola
> 
> _Many of the 'modern' classical music is not modern at all. It's simply lost in its own pretending that there is no other modern music out there than modern classical music._
> I totally agree, just take a look at the Todays composer thread, the all sound like imitators.


If you think that amateur juvenilia on an internet forum represents modern music from living composers, then you are severely misinformed.

Can you name any accomplished _professional_ composers of the present?

(There sure are a lot and they sound nothing like the classical or romantic era at all)


----------



## Pugg

Daniel Atkinson said:


> If you think that amateur juvenilia on an internet forum represents modern music from living composers, then you are severely misinformed.
> 
> Can you name any accomplished _professional_ composers of the present?
> 
> (There sure are a lot and they sound nothing like the classical or romantic era at all)


Ask nicely and who knows.


----------



## MarkMcD

All we're doing here is expressing our opinions, I don't think there is any need for animosity. Education does not always equal good manners.

I do think that since starting this thread, I have changed a little in my views, and have listened to quite a bit more music of the present. Whilst I do agree that in order for classical composers to be successful in the eyes of the "serious classical listener", they do indeed need to be contemporary, there is little room for using a language that is past, although this is not an absolute. Here's a good example 



 Carlos Chavez wrote this beautiful work expressly in the style of Mozart and it is quite successful. I do think that if you are going to write music like this, then it has to be excellent, as this is in my opinion.

Although I do still think that many people who come here to this forum to present their music are sometimes experiencing a degree of coldness about this very subject that is wholly unwarranted. Most are never really intending to become professional, and are just seeking some encouragement to continue doing something that they love, and if you find that you don't like what they're doing, or that it is using an outdated language, then there are much kinder ways to express your opinions, and if you don't have time to pander to these people, then don't leave a comment. There is not 1 person presenting work here who is not writing music because of a deep love for the art, and if you must crush someone, then at least do it with a velvet glove rather than a mallet.

However, there is no doubt that for me at least, what I want from music, is for it to speak to me, to transport me to other places and to make me feel something, and whilst I don't call myself a "serious classical listener" I am not a total novice with no musical education. I can appreciate the work that goes into creating modernist music, but it very rarely moves me. Ones reaction to music is instantaneous, and although you may grow to like something more with time, you rarely get more than the first exposure to a piece to impress, and for me personally, modernist and especially atonal constructions (not in all cases) do just leave me "feeling" very little.

I do also think that the elitism and snobbery that exists around classical music is actually doing much to harm the form, keeping it always out of the reach of general public.


----------



## Torkelburger

Hey MarkMcD, I started a thread in the Classical Music Discussion forum titled, "21st and 20th Century Recommendations for Classical Era Lovers" with you in mind. Have you seen it and checked it out? (You could also post the Chavez there and whatever else you find that fits the thread). I hope you enjoy it!


----------



## MarkMcD

Hi Torkelburger,

No I haven't seen it, but I'm heading over there now to check it out, thanks


----------



## pokeefe0001

MarkMcD said:


> Hi Vasks,
> 
> My thought is that amateurs like myself are generally not TRYING to be inferior copies of something or someone past, we are just expressing what we have in our souls if you like, and we are (or I am) very much in the learning stages still. I personally spend a lot of time trying to take out and refine bits of my music that I consider, for want of a better word, unoriginal or pastiche, but it still remains that "my voice", is not a modern one and I don't think ever will be. Should I just stop?


It might be worthwhile to try to determine just what "not a modern one" means to you since there are so many different aspects to "modern" (and many are mutually exclusive). I'm guessing - perhaps incorrectly - that Common Practice functional harmony is part of your "voice". It served well from the baroque through the romantic periods and is still alive today. But beautiful music does not have to be limited to CP harmony, and sometimes abandoning it can add a little spice. (Debussy wrote a lot of very beautiful and/or exiting music by completely turning his back on CP harmonic theory.)

Another avenue to explore: listen to some of the 20th century Nordic or British modal composers.

In fact, take a listen to almost any 20th or 21st century composer whose music is judged unacceptable in academic circles as not modern enough. You may find music that is not a pastiche of bits from the past, but is also approachable. Much of it will not be "you", but you may find techniques that work there way into your compositions.

Another kind of fun thing is to as an exercise is to take a dry academic technique for composing "atonal" music - tone row theory or pitch class set theory - and use it to write something (almost) tonal. Pick a row or pitch class set that already has a harmonic and melodic feel that you like and you'll be surprised at what you can produce. Yes, those techniques are a century old, so you, too, will be frowned upon by academia, but you may surprise yourself by coming up with something you like.


----------



## arnerich

MarkMcD said:


> I really feel that the only reason that any artist should be creating whatever it is that they create, is because that is what they feel in their soul, and that they have a desire to make it concrete in some way, the rest, financial gain, fame, validation from your peers and/or the general public, is incidental to the creation of a thing of beauty, and if what you do is done for this reason, should it really be considered somehow less important because it is not rooted in the more modernist movement, i.e. if it is reminiscent of the 19th century style of music?


I am an example of the artist you just described. I don't compose music for fame or recognition. My only goal is to compose music that lights a fire within me and share it with others who may also enjoy it. That may sound weird but it works for me. I've never been on a quest for originality because when I am composing music with "fire" originality has always found me instead! That doesn't mean I don't have to work for it though. I spend months on my music, sometimes years. I invite you to check out my YouTube channel. I'll be uploading much more of my music, the best of which I still need to record. Here are links to some of my works:

Polonaise in E flat
Double Fugue, "Leviathan" (my most popular)
Etude in G major (my favorite!)
Scriabin Variations


----------



## MarkMcD

Pokeefe0001,

You're quite right in that I'm saying my voice is not modern, but that is without really knowing the wide range of creations that make up modern music. I think I should better say that my language is tonal, melody driven with harmonies that compliment. That's not to say that I don't like to challenge myself by trying new ways to find these complimentary harmonies. I am at the moment writing a string quartet that I consider so far out of my usual comfort zone, that it's having separation anxiety, but I am trying, and I am also listening to a lot more "modern music" in no small part to this and other threads here that have suggested things I might like (or people like me too) and I am learning.

I haven't heard any Nordic compositions though, so there's something else to look out for. I don't really know the techniques you mentioned either, my musical education was cut quite short at only grade 3 piano, but again, I'm trying to learn, slow as it is lol.

Thanks for your suggestions and I will continue searching these things out.


Hi Arnerich,

I do believe very much what I said in my post, and I think your view is very similar to mine, however, your talent is much greater. I have already listened to some of your work, I think I saw it in another thread perhaps, but it is lovely, and your playing is equally elegant. 

I think I am slightly changing my definition at least, of what my own music is. As I said earlier in this thread, I never try to create copies of other composers, but because my style is tonal, I was equating that with not being modern, but then I had a very limited range of examples to compare it against. 

I will say that as of yet I haven't listened to all of the work you've linked here, but it is very much the sort of music that I love. I will listen some more tomorrow, but I'm already sure I will like it, you speak my language lol.

Thanks to you both and best regards
Mark


----------



## Dan Ante

There is that which I consider good and bad in both but being as there is more of the “old” then I like more of the old.
I don't know if that means it has more value what ever that may mean.


----------



## MarkMcD

Hi Dan Ante,
I think that is another point that really needs to be defined in the terms of this discussion. On the whole, I think the "Value" being referred to, that old styles of music have, versus new styles of music, is more to do with it's chances of being recorded by orchestras or picked up by publishers and sort after by serious classical listeners. In other words, if you write music that is "pastiche" then it will more than likely not be recorded, picked up or desired by the classical music establishment.

However, I personally don't think that that makes it any less beautiful or for that matter any less challenging to write, as long as it is good, and only "in the style of" as opposed to a direct copy.

Over the coarse of the this discussion, I have started to learn more about what constitutes "modern music", and actually I have been quite surprised by the variety of styles it encompasses, and I do now think that my own music, is within that range, even though it has ties to the past in it's melodies, harmonies and rhythms, it does have something more modern in the ways that I use those things.

I think that we all have our own personal definitions of what is and what is not modern, and one persons "pastiche" is someone else's "homage". And, even having said all that, there are still successful composers out there, creating work that skates very close to this line between what is considered one thing by one person, and another by another.


----------



## Torkelburger

I disagree with the couple of people who have suggested that atonal music is dated and old. Atonality is not a style or era. Atonality is a tool in a composer's toolbox that he may choose to use to build a piece or part of a piece with. It is a tool just as triads and extended chords, quartal harmony, clusters, polychords, bitonality, modal writing, functional harmony etc. are tools to be used at a composer's disposal. Atonality is not going anywhere and is going to be around for a long time to come. It has never been out of fashion as a tool. Composers have consistently used it throughout the 20th century. Elliot Carter wrote atonal music spanning eight decades through the 20th and 21st centuries. And modern-day composers such as Unsuk Chin, Wolfgang Rihm, Beat Furrer, Brian Ferneyhough and countless others still write atonal music, even twelve tone (such as Colin Matthews masterpiece from late 20th century _Broken Symmetry_). Much of it is still very original. Much of it was to begin with (Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg are all very different). It is as fresh and innovative today as it ever was.


----------



## Dan Ante

MarkMcD said:


> Hi Dan Ante,
> 
> Over the coarse of the this discussion, I have started to learn more about what constitutes "modern music", and actually I have been quite surprised by the variety of styles it encompasses, and I do now think that my own music, is within that range, even though it has ties to the past in it's melodies, harmonies and rhythms, it does have something more modern in the ways that I use those things.


Fair enough Mark, All music is subjective but I do think it is important (to me at least) that the basic principles of music should not be forgotten, Rhythm, Melody, Harmony and easily recognisable patterns these are what keeps music alive be it Classical, Folk, Jazz or Rock and Pop, not knocking modern music.


----------



## MarkMcD

Yes I think for me at least, you're right Dan Ante. I actually think that the more atonal compositions, whilst being very clever and quite innovative, actually do a lot to turn ordinary people away from classical music. You can't blanket everyone with that statement, nor can you blanket every atonal work with it either, but in general, I do think that atonal composition is out of reach to the vast majority of ordinary people, appealing mostly to the serious classical listener.

However, that is only my view, and atonal composition is only a small part of the modern classical repertoire, and as *Torkelburger* said, it isn't really a style of music as much as it is a tool that can be used by all, to greater or lesser effect, depending on the skill of the composer.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

I would like to suggest that many people here might do well to stop obsessing about matters of style and focus more on matters of technique, without which it is hardly possible to do anything musically worthwhile. In particular, I would say that if there is one thing that to my mind appears truly amateurish, it is the tendency towards little more than simplistic tune and accompaniment textures that I am hearing in much of the work posted here, while ignoring all the manifold possibilities of counterpoint, textural variation, thematic development, instrumentation and so on. I also see too many people fretting constantly over certain words: modern, tonal/atonal, academic, etc, etc. These are just words: I am mostly skeptical about their usefulness, unless accompanied by an appropriate level of sophistication.


----------



## MarkMcD

With respect and without wishing to cause offense Retrograde Inversion, I suspect that you may be forgetting that this forum is open to all, not just to the very well musically educated, and that in fact, lots of us (myself very much included) _are_ amateurs. I do realize that many more are professionals, either musicians or composers or both, but the amateurs among us are here mainly in order to learn and to grow as composers. For myself, I would agree that if my work is simplistic, then it will not appeal to you or to many in the world of classical music, but it is the best that I can do at the moment, and I'm not sure that I agree with the inference by opposites, that complexity and precision of technique, always equal good music. I agree also that the usefulness of certain words may well be in question, but what else do we have, even if we don't all possess the appropriate level of sophistication that should necessarily accompany their usage?


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

If you are not "very well musically educated" but are serious about composing, then it is up to you to acquire that musical education. If you lack sophistication it is up to you to acquire that sophistication. Both of these can be gained through self-directed study. In my view, "amateur" is more a state of mind than anything else.

You are correct that technique can't always be equated with musical quality, but the opposite is usually true: without solid compositional technique we can never hope to realize our ideas.


----------



## Vasks

Of course, TC is available to amateur composers. In fact, most that post here are and that's perfectly fine. The issue for me is not about that, but about those that come here to post their "compositions" that merely are imitations of Mozart or Chopin or whatever and then want adulation for their "beautiful" music. Sorry, but imitating is not creating. That's my only beef. End of lecture.


----------



## pokeefe0001

MarkMcD said:


> Pokeefe0001,
> You're quite right in that I'm saying my voice is not modern, but that is without really knowing the wide range of creations that make up modern music. I think I should better say that my language is tonal, melody driven with harmonies that compliment. That's not to say that I don't like to challenge myself by trying new ways to find these complimentary harmonies.


Saying "my language is tonal" actually gives you a lot of wiggle room. There are at least two quite different definitions of "tonal": having a clear tonal center, and using Common Practice functional harmony. By the latter definition jazz, modal music, bitonal and pantonal music, etc. are all non-tonal but ears (like mine) hear them as "tonal". There are a lot of living and recently dead composers writing that kind of tonal music. Philip Glass, Arvo Pärt, Alan Hovhaness, some of HK Gruber come to mind. While other argue whether atonal music is alive or dead, I say that tonal music is not dead. Admittedly, those composers may not be considered "modern" by some, but I'm not sure that matters.


----------



## Dan Ante

Personally I think it would be more polite to hear one of Marks pieces before questioning his approach and ideas.


----------



## MarkMcD

Retrograde Inversion said:


> If you are not "very well musically educated" but are serious about composing, then it is up to you to acquire that musical education. If you lack sophistication it is up to you to acquire that sophistication. Both of these can be gained through self-directed study. In my view, "amateur" is more a state of mind than anything else.


As I said, I am here, in part, to try and gain some more musical education. However, I do feel somewhat under attack at the moment. I like to think that I can disagree amicably if needs be and that others might extend the same curtesy, I am after all just a person, the same as you, no better no worse.


----------



## MarkMcD

Vasks said:


> Of course, TC is available to amateur composers. In fact, most that post here are and that's perfectly fine. The issue for me is not about that, but about those that come here to post their "compositions" that merely are imitations of Mozart or Chopin or whatever and then want adulation for their "beautiful" music. Sorry, but imitating is not creating. That's my only beef. End of lecture.


I do apologise, but I'm not sure if you are directing your reply to me personally, or that you are merely expressing your thoughts on the subject. I have said in the coarse of this thread that I think copies, imitations have very little or in fact no merit at all for the serious classical listener, and so on that point, we agree. I have also said that when I write, I do not imitate, to the best of my knowledge. I have also said that I am at the moment trying to take in some broader techniques with my writing, due, in no small part, to some of the members of this forum, who have kindly tried to broaden my outlook.

I myself do not post my work for mere adulation. I do it in the hope that some kind soul might find both the time and have the desire to help me correct what is not good, and provide some encouragement, not adulation.

Again, if you were not directing your comments at me personally, then I do apologise, but as I said earlier, it is starting to feel a little like an attack, rather than a friendly discussion amongst fellow forum members.


----------



## MarkMcD

Thanks Pokeefe, I think I need all the wriggle room I can get LOL :lol:


----------



## MarkMcD

Thank you also Dan Ante, I know that there are lots of people who will not want to listen to what I've posted, and in the event that they do listen, it may well not meet their standards, and that is absolutely fine by me, we all have free will and a perfect right to choose exactly what we want. I am at least _trying_ to expand my skills.


----------

