# Proliferation of music compositions via computer software & midi



## PetrB

From Composer John C. Adams' blog, _Earbox_...

Marcel Proost, Laptop Composer

http://www.earbox.com/posts/81


----------



## Wood

A fine composer and a witty writer, but like here, whenever I see him interviewed, he always seems to put other composers down.


----------



## Ukko

Wood said:


> A fine composer and a witty writer, but like here, whenever I see him interviewed, he always seems to put other composers down.


Hah! Some subjects are short on 'ups'.


----------



## PetrB

Wood said:


> A fine composer and a witty writer, but like here, whenever I see him interviewed, he always seems to put other composers down.


I think there is less new music to be excited about than there is to be disappointed in... i.e. the usual ratio of really good works found in any era.

The point of the article, however negative, is apposite -- I could not have said it better myself.

New comps from the same people, at a frequency of week after week or month after month, 'symphonies' and such -- their lack of any redeeming qualities in an accord of ratio equal to the length of time their composers put in to them -- and these comps litter Youtube, internet music fora, and any other outlets this species, i.e. the _Marcel Proost Laptop Composers_ can find.


----------



## PetrB

--------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Crudblud

It's sad that this is the popular conception of computer aided composition, sadder still that it is by and large true. It's kind of embarrassing to have to say to someone, when they ask "Dan, what kind of music do you do?", "Well, I work on a computer and..." _uh-oh_ they've already started with the wry smile that says _that's not real music_. Before I can attempt to justify my medium they are off and out the door, metaphorically speaking, eyes glazed over, faux sympathetic nods of the head as regular as the beat of the trash they have already made up their minds that I write. It frankly sucks to have put so much effort into making works that will essentially go unheard thanks to such stereotypes.

The internet makes it easier, I don't have to stumble through the obligatory preamble before people listen, they can make up their own minds on a first hand basis, and fortunately reception is considerably removed from the either hostile or disinterested responses I get out there in person. Even so we are, on this very forum, overrun with five minute ditties that took almost that many minutes to ctrl-v the first four bars of material so many times, and I think that is a considerable part of the reason why good works also go under the radar, doomed to be filed away by circumstance to the deep recesses of this ultimately transient archive. Yes, I'm whining; yes, I believe my work and that of some others here is better than those ditties; yes, I do feel I have good standing to complain about the tidal wave of crap assailing the ears of listeners who might otherwise be receptive to work of quality regardless of the mechanical particulars of its realisation.

From the audience's perspective it is difficult, even seemingly impossible, to separate the wheat from the chaff. I don't blame anyone who doesn't want to risk hearing yet another futile "attempt" to emulate a Mozart or a Brahms without an ounce of the craft, work ethic and experience that made those composers as good as they were. I don't expect that they should take a chance on something called _Oat_ (now that's what I call subtle!) a name to which the obvious response is_ what the hell kind of a title is that?_ and yet I continue. John Cage supposedly told Schoenberg, in response to his suggesting that Cage's deaf ear for harmony would be a wall preventing him from becoming a composer: 'I'll beat my head against that wall.' There's something in that which I relate to, I persist onward to a dead-end wall and, rather than trying to climb or circumvent it, I keep ramming it until I break through. I don't know why I persist in doing what I do when very few people care and even fewer enjoy it, but I suppose it is a selfishness, I suppose I need to do it, and I suppose I will continue doing it even in a way that engenders the wry smile, the glazed eye, the faux sympathetic nod, because the fulfilment I get from doing it is ultimately greater than the voice that says "give up."


----------



## PetrB

Crudblud said:


> .... Even so we are, on this very forum, overrun with five minute ditties that took almost that many minutes to ctrl-v the first four bars of material so many times...


And this is Adams' point.

No one disses _the thing_: computer, fiddle, oboe, piano; the user, well, therein is the crux of it


----------



## Blancrocher

The article reminds me of 18th-century complaints about "Grub Street." It's worth remembering that those writers never really hurt anybody, and in any case didn't prosper very much by their art. 

Some good comments on the article, btw--I especially liked the comparison to Schumann's writing.


----------



## juergen

Sounds like the rant of an old man who is angry that he can't keep track with what is happening in the world these days.

Well, I don't care. I'm not a laptop composer. I'm a desktop PC composer.


----------



## Mahlerian

The best thing about writing music on a computer is that it gives the possibility of quick distribution. The worst is that this same tendency forces people to send things out before they've spent enough time working on them.

The only times I've used the most ctrl-c, ctrl-v are when I've written parodies of bad internet music...or Moonlit Night...Other than that I actually write every single note and it takes _longer_ than it would on paper.


----------



## PetrB

juergen said:


> Sounds like the rant of an old man who is angry that he can't keep track with what is happening in the world these days.
> 
> Well, I don't care. I'm not a laptop composer. I'm a desktop PC composer.


LOL. Adams was working with synthesizers and computers before many a TC member (and a number of its younger composers) were born.


----------



## Vasks

While Adams was a bit harsh in condemning composing at one's computer, he's right in pointing out that today a whole lot more garbage is being written since it's now easier to do and to disseminate.

But who cares? The garbage won't be taken seriously by the professional music world...or at least I hope not.


----------



## violadude

I compose directly into Finale a lot of the time. I think it can work if you are aware of the problems that arise from doing that and are creative/imaginative enough to get around those problems.


----------



## PetrB

Vasks said:


> ...he's right in pointing out that today a whole lot more garbage is being written since it's now easier to do and to disseminate.
> 
> But who cares? The garbage won't be taken seriously by the professional music world...or at least I hope not.


There is _*a reason*_ I placed this OP in *Today's Composers*


----------



## juergen

PetrB said:


> LOL. Adams was working with synthesizers and computers before many a TC member (and a number of its younger composers) were born.


Yep. Hoodoo Zephyr, for electronics: 
http://www.allmusic.com/album/john-adams-hoodoo-zephyr-mw0000686752
:lol:

Isn't this excactly that kind of music he is complaining about? But well, he didn't use a laptop. Must have been a sort of step sequencer.


----------



## Mahlerian

juergen said:


> Isn't this excactly that kind of music he is complaining about?


No. It is not. He's complaining about stuff on this level or lower, that sounds and looks like it took about as much time to write as it lasts.

John Adams has long used synthesizers in his works, and repetition as well. But compare the idealess music proliferating on the internet with even the most seemingly repetitious of his pieces and the latter reveal a sense of craft that the former do not have. The prelude to Nixon in China, for example, begins with repeated A natural minor scales, one after another. But the elements slowly move out of synchronization and the harmony shifts from one pole to another almost imperceptibly. Slow cross rhythms pervade the texture and move unpredictably. This is no mere copy-paste, but actual composition, regardless of the surface level repetition.


----------



## Ukko

juergen said:


> Yep. Hoodoo Zephyr, for electronics:
> http://www.allmusic.com/album/john-adams-hoodoo-zephyr-mw0000686752
> :lol:
> 
> Isn't this excactly that kind of music he is complaining about? But well, he didn't use a laptop. Must have been a sort of step sequencer.


Looks like he is bitchin' about quality, not kind. I listened to all the samples, with reactions ranging from 'I ain't going to like this' to New Age possible. I listened to a lot of New Age music a few decades back, it was good for the place my head was at. The members who do this stuff could maybe make a technical quality estimate, I ain't up to it.


----------



## aleazk

Boulez has the same opinion: 




Although a little more provocative, since he also talks about amateurs in general (me included, lol). I would say, being honest, he's right.


----------



## PetrB

Some of the objection is to a 'quality' of music those of us who went to music schools are well aware of: painfully awkward, ill-written, 'bad' student work. The big difference, is to one generation at least, it had to be written by hand, and when the piece was done, it got shown or played for a mere handful of peers or teachers, and was not plastered all over the internet.

The youthful ego bursting to show others what one had made was contained, by the lack of media available (including computers and midi) and some tempered 'good sense' to know they were very rough beginner's attempts, and that one should not paste them up for the whole world to see.

The computer, midi, and the internet have changed all that, and I believe modified the common sense of a good number of fledglings -- it seems there are now legions who have lost the good sense of discernment re: the interest or merit of the work they do, and what to show, where and when.

P.s. TC (and other fora) have members _who only participate when they want an audience for their compositions, their singing, their playing_ who are otherwise consistently absent.


----------



## Mahlerian

aleazk said:


> Boulez has the same opinion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although a little more provocative, since he also talks about amateurs in general (me included, lol). I would say, being honest, he's right.


I watched through to the end! Boulez is always a great speaker on music, both his own and others', even though I disagree with him from time to time (such as on Adams!).


----------



## aleazk

Mahlerian said:


> I watched through to the end! Boulez is always a great speaker on music, both his own and others', even though I disagree with him from time to time (such as on Adams!).


It's an excellent interview. Great insights regarding Webern, Debussy, Ligeti, and many other things. I watched it many times


----------



## Wood

PetrB said:


> I think there is less to be excited about than there is to be disappointed in... i.e. the usual ratio of really good works found in any era.
> 
> The point of the article, however negative, is apposite -- I could not have said it better myself.
> 
> New comps from the same people, at a frequency of week after week or month after month, 'symphonies' and such -- their lack of any redeeming qualities in an accord of ratio equal to the length of time their composers put in to them -- and these comps litter Youtube, internet music fora, and any other outlets this species, i.e. the _Marcel Proost Laptop Composers_ can find.


Does it matter though, if composers are enjoying themselves? Is there any harm in it?

Is this any different to all the turgid blogs that have appeared on't 'net in the last few years?


----------



## Wood

Ukko said:


> Looks like he is bitchin' about quality, not kind. I listened to all the samples, with reactions ranging from 'I ain't going to like this' to New Age possible. I listened to a lot of New Age music a few decades back, it was good for the place my head was at. The members who do this stuff could maybe make a technical quality estimate, I ain't up to it.


I've enjoyed this album for a long time. Turn the dial up to 11 and let go.

I'll let others explain _why_ it is so good.


----------



## juergen

PetrB said:


> The computer, midi, and the internet have changed all that, and I believe modified the common sense of a good number of fledglings -- it seems there are now legions who have lost the good sense of discernment re: the interest or merit of the work they do, and what to show, where and when


Where, if not in a forum like this should a beginner present his first attempts? This is not the whole internet.



PetrB said:


> P.s. TC (and other fora) have members _who only participate when they want an audience for their compositions, their singing, their playing_ who are otherwise consistently absent.


TC also has members who constantly comment on the quality of the compositions presented by others, but never present one of their own.


----------



## Vasks

PetrB said:


> P.s. TC (and other fora) have members _who only participate when they want an audience for their compositions, their singing, their playing_ who are otherwise consistently absent.


No!! Say it's not so!!! LOL!!!


----------



## aleazk

juergen said:


> TC also has members who constantly comment on the quality of the compositions presented by others, but never present one of his own.


Well, but if those members show actual musical knowledge and their reviews are helpful, I don't see any problem with that. In fact, quite the opposite, it's very welcome.


----------



## Vasks

Wood said:


> Does it matter though, if composers are enjoying themselves? Is there any harm in it?
> 
> Is this any different to all the turgid blogs that have appeared on't 'net in the last few years?


No it really doesn't matter. John Adams shouldn't be so worked up over this phenomenon. Its harmless enough; just annoying to those who are trained to discern the chaff from the wheat


----------



## KenOC

I can't get worked up about this. Ol' John's just getting a bit crotchety at 67. Ask me how I know!

Oh, never mind. He wrote that one four years ago. No excuses, John!


----------



## Ukko

Vasks said:


> No it really doesn't matter. John Adams shouldn't be so worked up over this phenomenon. Its harmless enough; just annoying to those who are trained to discern the chaff from the wheat


It is harmless enough to 'the citizens', who can exercise the option not to listen. It may not be harmless to members of the composing 'profession', who take pride in it. Measured against the time homo sapiens have existed, an instant ago essentially all composers were composer/musicians, and in the time when guilds were ascendent many of them were guild members. Any Terry Pratchet scholar knows the esthetic of the guilds.


----------



## PetrB

juergen said:


> Yep. Hoodoo Zephyr, for electronics:
> http://www.allmusic.com/album/john-adams-hoodoo-zephyr-mw0000686752
> :lol:
> 
> Isn't this excactly that kind of music he is complaining about? But well, he didn't use a laptop. Must have been a sort of step sequencer.


Unfortunately, pointing out the sort of music he is talking about could lead me directly to a few 'numbers' in this category, and to do so would be needlessly unkind, let alone against TC's Terms of Service.


----------



## PetrB

juergen said:


> Yep. Hoodoo Zephyr, for electronics:
> http://www.allmusic.com/album/john-adams-hoodoo-zephyr-mw0000686752


And _Light Over Water,_ for Brass and electronics.


----------



## KenOC

juergen said:


> Yep. Hoodoo Zephyr, for electronics:
> http://www.allmusic.com/album/john-adams-hoodoo-zephyr-mw0000686752
> :lol:


JCA has absorbed some snide comments for this, mostly about noodling around with a synth. But I like this particular piece!


----------



## juergen

PetrB said:


> And _Light Over Water,_ for Brass and electronics.


The reason why you've posted this is that you find it impressive?


----------



## Torkelburger

I saw this interview with Michael Daugherty, an established composer who is in John Adams' league. He attended the University of North Texas, the Manhattan School of Music, and his doctorate is from Yale University. He has studied at IRCAM with Boulez, studied privately with Ligeti, and also studied at Tanglewood. He teaches at the prestigious University of Michigan and his music is regularly performed by major orchestras, performers, etc.

He offers a different viewpoint about this subject than Mr. Adams that many will find reassuring. Thought I'd share.


----------



## Ukko

Hah! It's not clear to me who that clip will reassure.


----------



## KenOC

I suspect, from reading other comments by John Adams, that he is really criticizing the substitution of technology for musical thought. He wrote a blog some time back about his composing master classes, where students often present compositions that are basically the background tracks to what really should be (but isn't) taking place.

His reaction: Get a pencil and music paper. Start with a strong idea, something arresting. You can add the noodling later.

Obviously Adams is no stranger to the synthesizer or music both wholly and partly synthesized. In fact, he may compose at his synthesizer (but he'd never admit it!)


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> JCA has absorbed some snide comments for this, mostly about noodling around with a synth. But I like this particular piece!


I think it is huge fun. No crime about a piece of music being ebulliently fun, I hope!


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> I suspect, from reading other comments by John Adams, that he is really criticizing the substitution of technology for musical thought. He wrote a blog some time back about his composing master classes, where students often present compositions that are basically the background tracks to what really should be (but isn't) taking place.
> 
> His reaction: Get a pencil and music paper. Start with a strong idea, something arresting. You can add the noodling later.
> 
> Obviously Adams is no stranger to the synthesizer or music both wholly and partly synthesized. In fact, he may compose at his synthesizer (but he'd never admit it!)


Yes of course! This is quite the same when typewriters, then word processors, became readily available, and ditto computers, and midi, desktop recording and notation software.

What any of them can allow -- and we've read and heard the results -- is to so speed up the process of invention and 'getting it down on paper,' that *time which the by-hand method allowed for thought is obliterated.* People are 'just making stuff up' and not giving a moments thought to what it is they are making, regardless if it really 'works' or not. Ergo, they are also not learning / exercising their ability _to discern_, *leaving a void where their (necessary) sense of self-criticism should be! *

*This is why I've dubbed a lot of what we hear which was done in computers "Midi Spew"* -- it is so endemic that many of these quickly done "Symphonies, Piano Concertos, Baroque Concerti Grossi," etc. are readily identifiable as having been done in a computer.

*Time to stop and think,* regardless of the speed of your apparatus


----------



## StevenOBrien

I really wish people would stop propagating this idea that trying to make someone write their music with pencil and paper instead of a computer will suddenly turn them into a good composer. It won't, and I've seen first-hand that inflicting "advice" like this onto beginning composers can be time-wasting, damaging and will-breaking for them.

If someone asks for feedback on their work, you suggest to them how they could improve it. If it's mindlessly repetitive, you suggest how they could make the composition more interesting by varying the repetitions, or by moving onto a new contrasting section etc. etc. You don't go off on some opinionated rant about how notation software is the root of all evil in contemporary music. It's not going to help them.

While I'm sure some people will happily claim that using pencil and paper has done well for them, the reality is that it's an extremely roundabout solution to a fairly simple problem (the problem being that beginning composers don't fully understand what makes the music they love tick).

I also disagree with the idea that the problem lies with composers not giving enough thought and time to their work. I would instead argue that they simply don't have developed enough ears to determine that copy-pasting phrases over and over again isn't as satisfying as what they're trying to emulate in Vivaldi or Mozart or whoever. In other words, they cannot yet justify putting further thought and time into their work because they don't see what's wrong with it.

I seriously have to wonder what people like John Adams think notation software actually does. Does he think they all just have a big panel of "make asinine music" buttons?

It disappoints me to disagree with a composer whose music I _really_ do admire, but... come on...


----------



## PetrB

juergen said:


> The reason why you've posted this is that you find it impressive?


Well, it sure has more going for it than 99% of the songs by Kraftwerk, dontcha think?


----------



## PetrB

StevenOBrien said:


> I really wish people would stop propagating this idea that trying to make someone write their music with pencil and paper instead of a computer will suddenly turn them into a good composer. It won't, and I've seen first-hand that inflicting "advice" like this onto beginning composers can be time-wasting, damaging and will-breaking for them.


I would almost wager good money on the guess that you played, and improvised, and began to notate your ideas, all well before you ever had computer notation software and midi at your disposal.

Yes, some of what you say is true, but much of what I think you do not realize is that when people with little or no experience -- who often enough do not play any instrument adequately at all -- get their hands on the computer and software they commonly yield -- near instantly -- _to what the computer can most readily do._

Many who are working that way are so delighted and impressed that they can make anything, at all, and they have had no prior experience in listening carefully and considering what they are doing, or if it really works.

The advice of "picking up a pencil and some manuscript paper" _is the best prescription_ to slow many a neophyte down, at least for a brief period, and convince them to think a bit about what they are making. In the middle of hitting copy and paste, including merely doubling some paper thin riff and distributing it throughout a synthetic midi orchestral registration _is not at all conducive in slowing down a very keen neophyte._ If they instead had to write that all out by hand, it is almost a guarantee they will be forced to think about it more.

In the Today's Composers category here, I've seen some very good advice given to some neophytes presenting their baroque concerti, piano improvisations. etc. those pieces all done very quickly and as quickly either notated and played or simply improvised and recorded. It is also clear to many listener's ears that the work is virtually free of both judicious editing or much thought gone into it during the creative process.

I have seen as often _absolutely no change in either the quality of the next piece or in the interval of time it took to whip out their first 'piano concerto' to the next 'piano concerto.'_ Clearly, they are not listening to the critiques or any advice... the _not listening_ part boding severely ill for anyone hoping to be a composer 

Ergo, the 'trick,' if you will, of urging upon them handwriting. Besides, whether it is your musical grammar (spelling, sharps and flats as per the harmonic context and key) or allowing the computer to tell you if your rhythmic notation adds up within any given measure of a particular meter, just as knowing the math and being able to do it in your head is a real boon if your finger slips on the calculator (if you see an incorrect answer at least you have some sense it might be incorrect) it is very much the same with writing music with a computer and music notation software.

So I (nearly) _vehemently disagree with you._


----------



## StevenOBrien

PetrB said:


> I would almost wager good money on the guess that you played, and improvised, and began to notate your ideas, all well before you ever had computer notation software and midi at your disposal.


You would be a poor man! I started "composing" 7 years ago with a program called Garageband using the old "randomly drag things around until you get something you like and copy and paste it" technique. I wasn't able to play a musical instrument at that point, and I had not paid any serious attention to music before that point. I've also never seriously composed using pencil and paper.



PetrB said:


> Yes, some of what you say is true, but much of what I think you do not realize is that when people with little or no experience -- who often enough do not play any instrument adequately at all -- get their hands on the computer and software they commonly yield -- near instantly -- to what the computer can most readily do.
> 
> Many who are working that way are so delighted and impressed that they can make anything, at all, and they have had no prior experience in listening carefully and considering what they are doing, or if it really works.


I don't really see what's wrong with that. It's a starting point that they grow out of, and the instant gratification makes composing initially much more accessible to my fellow composers with ADD who would otherwise not be interested in it.

You would then, of course, point things out to them and ask if they might prefer doing it this way or that way to make things more interesting and varied..



PetrB said:


> The advice of "picking up a pencil and some manuscript paper" is the best prescription to slow many a neophyte them down, at least for a brief period, and convince them to think a bit about what they are making. In the middle of hitting copy and paste, including merely doubling some paper thin riff and distributing it throughout a synthetic midi orchestral registration is not at all conducive in slowing down a very keen neophyte. If they instead had to write that all out by hand, it is almost a guarantee they will be forced to think about it more.


What the people who recommend this don't seem to realize is that the vast majority of people (even those who are using notation software to write their music) can't actually read/write music and rely on the computer as tool to realize their ideas. And so, time is then wasted learning how to read/write music onto paper, and even more time is wasted when the composer realizes they've accidentally written a lot of things incorrectly, and so they give up and are left back where they started. As I said, I've seen many beginning composers grow out of this problem without ever turning to pencil/paper, which would suggest that there are much better ways of solving this problem.

Besides, if you _really_ have to *force* some poor composer to go through that in order to get them to stop mindlessly copying and pasting everything, I'd say that they're probably a lost cause anyway and not worth bothering with.



PetrB said:


> I have seen as often absolutely no change in either the quality of the next piece or in the interval of time it took to whip out their first 'piano concerto' to the next 'piano concerto.' Clearly, they are not listening to the critiques or any advice... the not listening part boding severely ill for anyone hoping to be a composer


And as I said, if they're happy with their work and not willing to listen to critique, then why bother with them? Let them be happy and think that they're a misunderstood reincarnation of Vivaldi. Besides, if they're ignoring every single piece of advice given to them, then they're certainly not going to listen to your advice to use pencil and paper either now, are they?


----------



## science

I'm sympathetic to romanticism... I am still quite a fan of a sharp pencil and a piece of paper.

But new tools are just new tools, however unromantic.


----------



## juergen

PetrB said:


> Well, it sure has more going for it than 99% of the songs by Kraftwerk, dontcha think?


Neither Kraftwerk nor the clumsy electronics experiments of Adams meet my idea of appealing electronic music. But if one were to compare sales figures of 'Autobahn' and 'Light over Water', what do you think, who is better off?


----------



## juergen

science said:


> I'm sympathetic to romanticism... I am still quite a fan of a sharp pencil and a piece of paper.
> 
> But new tools are just new tools, however unromantic.


I really do not understand what exactly the romanticism of a pencil is. Have you ever been in love with a pencil?


----------



## science

juergen said:


> I really do not understand what exactly the romanticism of a pencil is. Have you ever been in love with a pencil?


Why would you reduce "romance" to that? It's a great word!


----------



## juergen

science said:


> Why would you reduce "romance" to that? It's a great word!


It may be a great word, but what has a pencil to do with it? By the way: Wouldn't it be even more romantic to use a quill pen for composing?


----------



## science

juergen said:


> It may be a great word, but what has a pencil to do with it? By the way: Wouldn't it be even more romantic to use a quill pen for composing?


Yes, it would! You've got the idea now.


----------



## PetrB

StevenOBrien said:


> What the people who recommend this don't seem to realize is that the vast majority of people (even those who are using notation software to write their music) can't actually read/write music and rely on the computer as tool to realize their ideas.


That explains the most raw and flawed stuff we hear thrust upon us (yes, I know at least clicking on that link is voluntary, but

So, any complaints of this are being addressed to the illiterate who have no previous background at all... what a world, and no wonder there are yards and yards of pieces loaded with the same basic flaws -- so many of them from different composers sounding virtually interchangeable -- repeated ad nauseum! It is no longer a mystery how one piece after another shows up from the same party - who was given good advice - with no change at all in the faults their previously posted piece had. For me, I realize I do not have the patience; there is just too much flawed and dreadful writing to make any effort to comment upon or to try to help correct.

For those working with so little, from the perspective of how anyone learns this is very bad news indeed. It takes twenty times longer to unlearn and then learn correctly a thing you have learned incorrectly and repeated so many times. But learning it wrongly / badly is what I fear a majority of the illiterate neophytes with computers and music software are doing and repeatedly in the extreme - they are deeply programming in a legion of bad habits.

I think this ready availability of the tools for those who are both illiterate and inexperienced and the fact they have 'programmed in' so many badly learned premises and accumulated terrible habits that it would take a mountain of corrective tutoring to bring them around is due cause for an ancillary industry - the remedial music tutor (that service, gratis, natch.)

Thanks for you explanation, I would have never thought it was 'that bad,' and have realized via your answer that I have no patience for remedial tutoring -- a good thing -- because those who do hunt and peck in the computer to make pieces truly need another adviser who has a very different temperament.

Best regards.


----------



## PetrB

juergen said:


> Neither Kraftwerk nor the clumsy electronics experiments of Adams meet my idea of appealing electronic music. But if one were to compare sales figures of 'Autobahn' and 'Light over Water', what do you think, who is better off?


More people purchase cheap lesser quality products than the more / most expensive high quality products. It is a blazing flash of the obvious that it is not a matter of 'who is economically better off.'


----------



## PetrB

juergen said:


> It may be a great word, but what has a pencil to do with it? By the way: Wouldn't it be even more romantic to use a quill pen for composing?


Only if you find your own feather, pare it to make the quill, and make your own ink.


----------



## juergen

science said:


> Yes, it would! You've got the idea now.


And of course we also should wear a powdered wig whilst composing and use a candle instead of electric light. Yes, I remember we already had this sort of discussion in another thread.


----------



## juergen

PetrB said:


> More people by cheap lesser quality products than the more / most expensive high quality products. It is a blazing flash of the obvious that it is not a matter of 'who is economically better off.'


Actually, my opinion is that there is no such thing as "quality" in music. There is only "I like it" or "I don't like it". So, if you like Adam's attempts in electronic music, then they have a high quality *for you* (and maybe for a few others).


----------



## Ukko

juergen said:


> Actually, my opinion is that there is no such thing as "quality" in music. There is only "I like it" or "I don't like it". So, if you like Adam's attempts in electronic music, then they have a high quality *for you* (and maybe for a few others).


If you balk at 'quality', will 'craftsmanship' work?


----------



## Mahlerian

juergen said:


> Actually, my opinion is that there is no such thing as "quality" in music. There is only "I like it" or "I don't like it". So, if you like Adam's attempts in electronic music, then they have a high quality *for you* (and maybe for a few others).





juergen said:


> Neither Kraftwerk nor the *clumsy electronics experiments* of Adams meet my idea of appealing electronic music. But if one were to compare sales figures of 'Autobahn' and 'Light over Water', what do you think, who is better off?


I don't know if you believe what you just said. Is "clumsy" suddenly a value-neutral adjective now? Perhaps you meant "to my ears, it sounds clumsy, though there is nothing inherent in the music itself that merits such a comment objectively".

In which case, I wonder, why did you bother to bring it up at all? Is your equally valid subjective perception worth so much that it needs to be given in public, multiple times, in derisive comments against John Adams' electronic music?


----------



## KenOC

An odd comment anyway. John Adams's works may be many things, but somehow "clumsy" doesn't seem to fit anywhere.


----------



## juergen

Mahlerian said:


> Perhaps you meant "to my ears, it sounds clumsy


Yes, exactly that I meant. And of course I can only speak for myself. Like everyone here.


----------



## Mahlerian

juergen said:


> Yes, exactly that I meant. And of course I can only speak for myself. Like everyone here.


My point is that, if you don't believe that those words actually have anything to do with the innate qualities of the music itself:
1) Why phrase them as if they do, routinely and regularly and repeatedly?
2) Why say them at all, and why defend them when challenged, if they are, by their nature, *equal to anyone else's opinion*?


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> An odd comment anyway. John Adams's works may be many things, but somehow "clumsy" doesn't seem to fit anywhere.


Unless, of course, as in the ballet scene in Nixon in China, where the transitions are intentionally clumsy!


----------



## juergen

Mahlerian said:


> 2) Why say them at all, and why defend them when challenged, if they are, by their nature, *equal to anyone else's opinion*?


Because it is the essence of a music forum to express opinions about music.


----------



## Mahlerian

Yes, but why on earth would you care about anyone's opinion other than your own? Theirs are no more valid than that of the person who has never even heard the work and only knows the name.


----------



## Ukko

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but why on earth would you care about anyone's opinion other than your own? Theirs are no more valid than that of the person who has never even heard the work and only knows the name.


The opinion "That is clumsy" can be challenged on empirical grounds.


----------



## Mahlerian

Ukko said:


> The opinion "That is clumsy" can be challenged on empirical grounds.


Based on what, though? Clumsy implies a value judgement at its base, and if there are no valid value judgments regarding music, than it must be necessarily equal to the opposite opinion.


----------



## juergen

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but why on earth would you care about anyone's opinion other than your own? Theirs are no more valid than that of the person who has never even heard the work and only knows the name.


I'm always interested in the opinions of others. Actually that's the main reason why I'm here. So you might learn to hear a music differently than before.

And don't get me wrong, I don't have a specific problem with Adams. There are enough pieces of him that I appreciate. But his attemts in electronic music are not exactly a hit. But that's of course only MY opinion.


----------



## Mahlerian

juergen said:


> I'm always interested in the opinions of others. Actually that's the main reason why I'm here. So you might learn to hear a music differently than before.


Why, though?



juergen said:


> And don't get me wrong, I don't have a specific problem with Adams. There are enough pieces of him that I appreciate. But his attemts in electronic music are not exactly a hit. But that's of course only MY opinion.


And why do you think that some things tend to resonate better than others? I'm not really defending Adams' electronic pieces either. They're not my favorite part of his output by far. I am, on the other hand, entirely against the idea that there is no such thing as innate quality or lack thereof in music.

I'm not saying that this means that X work is obviously bad and has nothing good about it and work Z is a flawless masterpiece, but rather that there is such a thing as artistry and there is such a thing as craftsmanship, and these manifest in different works and in different ways. The reason why the person off the street who's never heard a note of John Adams in his life is not equally qualified to give his opinion regarding Light over Water is because he doesn't have anything to base the opinion on.

There are things upon which to base opinions about music. People may respond to these differently, but the fact is that they're talking about the same aesthetic object.

On the other hand, if you take it for granted that everyone's opinion is equally valid, if follows that this includes the person who's never bothered to listen and never will, which seems absurd to me.


----------



## juergen

Mahlerian said:


> Why, though?


To expand my mental horizons.

The only thing that I wanted to say above is that it makes no sense to talk about "quality" in music. There is no objectively verifiable measure for this. A music that one person considers as the heaven on earth may sound dull-witted and pesky to another one.

But if you know any objective quality standards for music, then please let me know. I might write a software that composes automatically music optimized according to these quality standards.


----------



## Mahlerian

juergen said:


> To expand my mental horizons.


How? What are you hoping to learn? Your opinion regarding a work cannot become any more valid or worthwhile than it already is, no matter how much you learn about it.

Even listening to it for the first time, although it gives you experience with the work, does not make your opinion any more or less valid than it was before you listened. It was even as valid before said work was written. What good is expanding your or anyone else's horizons?



juergen said:


> The only thing that I wanted to say above is that it makes no sense to talk about "quality" in music. There is no objectively verifiable measure for this. A music that one person considers as the heaven on earth may sound dull-witted and pesky to another one.
> 
> But if you know any objective quality standards for music, then please let me know. I might write a software that composes automatically music optimized according to these quality standards.


You and I are approaching this problem from very different angles.

You say that there is no absolute yardstick for quality in music, and you may be correct that such a thing can never be discovered.

In spite of that, we all seem to have surprisingly concrete ideas about what constitutes a quality composition or not, and these are, despite varying backgrounds and experiences, surprisingly similar.

That people's perceptions of a particular piece of music differ seems to me based far more on personal experience and taste than anything else, and really doesn't bother me at all. They can both be right from their own perspective, as justified by their perception of what the music is, and they can both have access to different aspects of the work as a result.

I cannot accept the idea that there is no such thing as objective quality, because its implications seem to me ridiculous and completely untenable. If proposition not-A is unacceptable, then A must, of logical necessity, be accepted.


----------



## Morimur

juergen said:


> To expand my mental horizons.
> 
> The only thing that I wanted to say above is that it makes no sense to talk about "quality" in music. There is no objectively verifiable measure for this. A music that one person considers as the heaven on earth may sound dull-witted and pesky to another one.
> 
> But if you know any objective quality standards for music, then please let me know. I might write a software that composes automatically music optimized according to these quality standards.


(01) Technique & Craftsmanship - Good articulation; tone quality; and with regards to craftsmanship, consistency in the handling of the musical materials (the themes, harmonies, rhythms).

(02) Expressiveness - This is at the aesthetic heart of what we call music. It includes knowing when to bend a pitch and how much; stretching notes (without drastically changing the tempo), i.e., sensitive timing as well as accurate timing.

All art is subjective to a point. There are standards, otherwise all small children would have their artwork hanging in museums right alongside Munch and Picasso.


----------



## Ukko

Mahlerian said:


> Based on what, though? Clumsy implies a value judgement at its base, and if there are no valid value judgments regarding music, than it must be necessarily equal to the opposite opinion.


There are degrees of clumsiness of course but clumsy 'at its base' has valid synonyms, like awkward, stumbling, incompetent. Clumsy is readily detectable. Everything just _ain't_ relative.


----------



## juergen

Mahlerian said:


> In spite of that, we all seem to have surprisingly concrete ideas about what constitutes a quality composition or not, and these are, despite varying backgrounds and experiences, surprisingly similar.


I'm actually rather often surprised how different the ideas of the people are about what constitutes a quality composition. For example Mozart. There are many people, me included, who consider his music as one of the highlights in the history of music. But there are also many people who find his music bland and dull. Now tell me, who is right?

Music is a matter of taste. And quality in music is just an illusion, produced in our brains.


----------



## Mahlerian

juergen said:


> I'm actually rather often surprised how different the ideas of the people are about what constitutes a quality composition. For example Mozart. There are many people, me included, who consider his music as one of the highlights in the history of music. But there are also many people who find his music bland and dull. Now tell me, who is right?


You're looking at this in an overly simplistic way.

Does the person who considers his music among the best in the tradition recognize its harmonic craft and melodic charm? The way the form and content complement each other with clockwork-like precision? The way the intricate yet utterly transparent interaction of inner voices serves the entire conception of the music?

I'd say that person understands Mozart well.

Perhaps, on the other hand, the person who considers the music bland and dull simply has an aversion to the classical style itself. Maybe the proliferation of dominant-tonic cadences is harmonically uninteresting, and they prefer a richer harmonic palette. But maybe this same person understands exactly why Mozart is considered great, and recognizes all of these things as merits, despite their own personal aversion to the music.

I'd still say that person understands Mozart fairly well. Liking or disliking is not the same thing as aesthetic appreciation.

Maybe there's someone who can't tell Mozart from any other composer of the period, and it's all much the same to him, and he likes it all. Sure, this person likes Mozart fine, but do they understand Mozart? Not really.



juergen said:


> Music is a matter of taste. And quality in music is just an illusion, produced in our brains.


Yes, you have stated that this is your position. I disagree. I think that it is absurd to believe that Mozart's Concertos are of the same inherent value as Dittersdorf's symponies (charming as they may be in moments).

I believe that we can discuss these issues, and that, far from being an entirely subjective and unrelatable illusion, aesthetics are something that we can express and communicate with each other. That is the whole reason for having a discussion. I cannot imagine the slightest bit of interest in discussing something where _every single person has an entirely valid point which is nevertheless completely incommunicable_.

Tastes may not be able to be communicated. Thankfully, *I am not speaking about tastes*. I am speaking about aesthetics, about the principles underlying those tastes. These are things that can be communicated. These are things that fascinate and interest me personally. I can't learn much of anything from someone saying "I like this" or "I dislike this", because that doesn't communicate _*why*_, but I can learn a good deal from someone who describes why they like or dislike something, because I will nearly always be able to understand to some degree, even if my perception is different.


----------



## PetrB

juergen said:


> Actually, my opinion is that there is no such thing as "quality" in music. There is only "I like it" or "I don't like it". So, if you like Adam's attempts in electronic music, then they have a high quality *for you* (and maybe for a few others).


If they don't have _a high quality_ for you, though, that implies another empirical "I like not so much or not at all" -- we're all stuck with it.

I think Adam's _Voodoo Zephyr_ is fun, no worse than Grieg's _In the Hall of the Mountain King_ -- and perhaps more listenable upon a repeat hearing than either _Mountain King_ or Grieg's _Piano Concerto._

_Light over water_, I think is barely successful and of little consequence. I included it to merely list another of his early recorded electronic works to show to whichever OP thought Adams had never sat at the controls of a computer, synthesizer, etc. as proof again that he had done so, and years before many of the younger TC members were born.


----------



## BurningDesire

PetrB said:


> More people purchase cheap lesser quality products than the more / most expensive high quality products. It is a blazing flash of the obvious that it is not a matter of 'who is economically better off.'


Then by that logic does that mean Bach and Mozart and Beethoven are really bottom of the barrel in classical terms since most people flock to them? :3


----------



## KenOC

juergen said:


> Music is a matter of taste. And quality in music is just an illusion, produced in our brains.


I admit to having a lot of sympathy for this position. It's similar to the question, "What music is "great"?" It seems apparent to me that "great" music is what we agree (mostly) is great, and is quite subject to change over time.

Does that mean that there is no inherent "greatness" in any music? It's kind of a puzzle, eh?



Mahlerian said:


> *I am not speaking about tastes*. I am speaking about aesthetics, about the principles underlying those tastes. These are things that can be communicated.


Well, good luck with that.


----------



## BurningDesire

I must say I quite disagree with Adams here. Of course many amateurs with no training whatsoever, working purely for fun and with little seriousness are producing crappy music, but there are also plenty of untrained amateurs composing amazing music in many different idioms, and these modern tools help allow these kinds of things to happen. Basically they can allow access to the world of creating new music to people who may never have had the chance before, and that is anything but a problem. For somebody who is trained, these tools are extremely helpful and cut down tons of minutia and extra work that isn't really necessary anymore, like having to deal with transpositions the old-fashioned way, or having to erase if you make a mistake. Leaves more time to dedicate to the real art of composition. Of course the tools may at times have an affect on how one writes, but do you really think a pencil and paper couldn't possibly have a negative effect on your composing decisions? John Adams is a great composer, but he's espousing that same stupid mantra that you hear from all kinds of people, that most of everything is crap, or 99% of anything is garbage. I vehemently disagree. I believe most music is good, or at least has strong potential to be good.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> I admit to having a lot of sympathy for this position. It's similar to the question, "What music is "great"?" It seems apparent to me that "great" music is what we agree (mostly) is great, and is quite subject to change over time.
> 
> Does that mean that there is no inherent "greatness" in any music? It's kind of a puzzle, eh?


I think that the important thing is not looking at individual value judgments, but rather the principles that underlie them.

It's a similar problem to the one you get into in Ethics. There's certainly a school of thought that believes that there is no such thing as an absolute ethical standard, and it is pointed out that different cultures have considered plenty of things moral that our contemporary society considers immoral.

But in spite of that, one could still communicate with the people of those societies (assuming a lack of linguistic or temporal barrier) regarding notions of right and wrong. Throughout history, societies tend to value similar things; it just expresses itself differently.

It is relatively uninteresting to me whether Mozart's music is better than Beethoven's. It is very interesting to me to discover the merits in compositions by both, and many others besides. If one composer is valued over another at one time, and less than that same other at a different time, this seems to indicate not that his/her value has changed, so much as the society looks at musical value and/or the relevant composers in a different way.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> If one composer is valued over another at one time, and less than that same other at a different time, this seems to indicate not that his/her value has changed, so much as the society looks at musical value and/or the relevant composers in a different way.


I believe that these are one and the same thing. The "value" is precisely what society, at a point in time, places on the music. Nothing more. It is not an inherent attribute of the music.

Test: A hundred years hence, Bach is out of fashion (again). Most consider his WTC a set of finger exercises with some freakishly talented counterpoint, but of little interest beyond that. The members of this forum, I assure you, would by and large agree.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> I believe that these are one and the same thing. The "value" is precisely what society, at a point in time, places on the music. Nothing more. It is not an inherent attribute of the music.


You are making this statement, sure, but I doubt that it is the same as your experience.

Isn't your experience of music that the music itself does this or that, and this or that thing is better than some possible alternative? If not, why do you think that a composer like Brahms is performed with regularity while Edward MacDowell is not?

Why do you believe that your experience is not of the music itself, but of the societal reactions to the music?



KenOC said:


> Test: A hundred years hence, Bach is out of fashion (again). Most consider his WTC a set of finger exercises with some freakishly talented counterpoint, but of little interest beyond that. The members of this forum, I assure you, would by and large agree.


Most among whom? Bach's music has been revered by many composers and musicians since not long after his own day. It's an interesting thought experiment, perhaps, but it doesn't really imply anything other than what I said before: that different merits are weighed differently by different cultures.

I doubt that you'll run into a group that suddenly believes that Bach's music is bad because it uses diminished seventh chords, and any music that has diminished seventh chords is automatically aesthetically wrong. That would be an arbitrary rule, of course, but if you're claiming that musical taste works arbitrarily, then it's no less plausible than any other.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> Isn't your experience of music that the music itself does this or that, and this or that thing is better than some possible alternative? If not, why do you think that a composer like Brahms is performed with regularity while Edward MacDowell is not? Why do you believe that your experience is not of the music itself, but of the societal reactions to the music?


Simply because I am a member of society and my opinions and tastes are largely shaped by the views of society (or whatever subset of society I may hang out with). This seems apparent to me, and it's folly to pretend otherwise. As if each of us, in our wisdom, makes fair and impartial judgments of the worth of various sorts of music without the influence of our society? Wishful thinking.

And in fact, even if we could do so, how could we think that our idiosyncratic judgments were more worthy than the judgments of the broader society? What we'd have would be, "Bach's WTC is a work of inestimable value because I say so," while most others might have the opposite opinion, and the same right as ourselves to pronounce their view as "correct."

Your argument ultimately comes down to, "I am the arbiter of what is great in music, regardless of the opinions of others."


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Simply because I am a member of society and my opinions and tastes are largely shaped by the views of society (or whatever subset of society I may hang out with). This seems apparent to me, and it's folly to pretend otherwise. As if each of us, in our wisdom, makes fair and impartial judgments of the worth of various sorts of music without the influence of our society? Wishful thinking.


You are ascribing a position to me which I did not advocate for.

I am very aware of the fact that our tastes are conditioned by society and experience. I never said that we were able to make completely fair and impartial judgments. It is of course impossible to completely separate ourselves from our own subjectivity.

But the question of whether or not the truth can be discerned accurately and at all times is not at all relevant to the question of whether or not there is, in fact, a truth of the matter.

I also hardly think it is "wishful thinking" to consider the possibility that you may indeed be mistaken on absolutely everything you perceive. On the contrary, it is entirely safe to leave off any discussion with the simple, curt dismissal that "it's all opinion" without giving it a second thought.



KenOC said:


> And in fact, even if we could do so, how could we think that our idiosyncratic judgments were more worthy than the judgments of the broader society? What we'd have would be, "Bach's WTC is a work of inestimable value because I say so," while most others might have the opposite opinion, and the same right as ourselves to pronounce their view as "correct."


No, a view would of course never be right because of the speaker. I specifically stated this earlier. It is justified by reference only to the work itself, to qualities that are objectively part of the work and which can be discussed.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> No, a view would of course never be right because of the speaker. I specifically stated this earlier. It is justified by reference only to the work itself, to qualities that are objectively part of the work and which can be discussed.


You mentioned this earlier with an appeal to "objective" esthetic principles. I look forward to a discussion, since these valuable principles have received no further explanation -- so far! You might start by explaining why the WTC is a "great" work irrespective of society's acceptance of it, since that example has already been raised.

BTW esthetic principles also seem to change from age to age...



Mahlerian said:


> But the question of whether or not the truth can be discerned accurately and at all times is not at all relevant to the question of whether or not there is, in fact, a truth of the matter.


It's quite relevant in that there *must* be a truth of the matter if it is to be discerned accurately -- or at all. Otherwise, we're just pretending.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> It's quite relevant in that there *must* be a truth of the matter if it is to be discerned accurately -- or at all. Otherwise, we're just pretending.


...that completely turns around what I said.

Look,
If there is a fact of the matter, it exists, period.
Even if we are unable to discern it completely accurately or without bias, that doesn't change the above.



KenOC said:


> You mentioned this earlier with an appeal to esthetic principles. I look forward to a discussion, since this valuable principle has received no further explanation -- so far! You might start by explaining why the WTC is a "great" work irrespective of society's acceptance of it, since that example has already been raised.


I'll get back to you later. It's late now.


----------



## BurningDesire

Can we go back to the topic of the thread? XD


----------



## PetrB

BurningDesire said:


> Can we go back to the topic of the thread? XD


But all that hot air has lifted me up, but it is a pity that being lifted up should be so simultaneously boring


----------



## PetrB

Ukko said:


> The opinion "That is clumsy" can be challenged on empirical grounds.


And the opinion, "This is some of the best and most brilliantly written music ever written" (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart -- name any of the usual suspects) is _not_ an 'emprirical' opinion?


----------



## PetrB

PetrB said:


> More people purchase cheap lesser quality products than the more / most expensive high quality products. It is a blazing flash of the obvious that it is not a matter of 'who is economically better off.'





BurningDesire said:


> Then by that logic does that mean Bach and Mozart and Beethoven are really bottom of the barrel in classical terms since most people flock to them? :3


Context is everything, just like why a particular harmony works or does not as coming from and going to the next. You've ignored the context of the comment I addressed... here is the catalyst / context...



juergen said:


> Neither Kraftwerk nor the clumsy electronics experiments of Adams meet my idea of appealing electronic music. But if one were to compare sales figures of 'Autobahn' and 'Light over Water', what do you think, who is better off?


 _*Ergo:*_


PetrB said:


> More people purchase cheap lesser quality products than the more / most expensive high quality products. It is a blazing flash of the obvious that it is not a matter of 'who is economically better off.'


As per bulk sales in numbers of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, are not directly _economically_ benefiting from those sales as are John C. Adams or the members of Kraftwork benefiting from the sales of recordings of their works


----------



## Ukko

PetrB said:


> And the opinion, "This is some of the best and most brilliantly written music ever written" (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart -- name any of the usual suspects) is _not_ an 'emprirical' opinion?


Probably not. "Best" requires qualifications/special cases, where the performance of 'not-best' can be measured. "Brilliantly written" - you must know an empirical basis for that, but I don't.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> I'll get back to you later. It's late now.


Never mind...the discussion is all a replay and (in fact) I'm not totally convinced of my own position! But neither position is, I think, provable, which may be just as well. :tiphat:


----------



## juergen

KenOC said:


> and (in fact) I'm not totally convinced of my own position!


...Neither am I.


----------



## PetrB

From John Adams' blog, Earbox, Apr 19, 2010
http://www.earbox.com/posts/72

On master classes, viz _composition_ master classes or graduate student type composition meetings / seminars.

A lot of the article is cuttingly funny, and accurate. The most salient part I found to be Adams' naming the standard shortcomings of many a young composer... all worth thinking about for anyone who composes. (The bold font is my doing.)

"One very daunting challenge for young composers is how to judge the scale of what they've constructed. Since most pieces written in school settings are understandably brief (say between eight and twelve minutes), building a meaningful and satisfying expressive form is a challenge. Inexperienced composers often give over the larger part of their pieces to relatively low-interest, low-event material. Most pieces start slowly and for a long time haven't much to chew on. I often have to remind students about Beethoven and how gratifying it is to have a powerful, confident idea stated in the very first bar. But then…one has actually to have a powerful, confident idea, and those don't come a dime a dozen.

The other *issue that plagues so many student compositions is vagueness of harmonic language. We live in a post-style era in contemporary classical music. Students are blessedly free of the kind of bitterly divisive battles of style and orthodoxy that made life so brutal forty years ago. But the down side is that the "anything goes" climate of composing now produces thousands of pieces with no real internal cohesion. The harmonic character of a piece is of absolute, essential importance. It's how we know immediately that a Messiaen piece is by Messiaen or why we can identify a piece by Ligeti or Feldman or Reich instantaneously. Unfortunately most young composers come to their profession with little awareness and even less interest in creating a unique harmonic profile for their music.* This is one reason why so many pieces resort to OSTINATO-it's a kind of default mode to create a gravitational sense in the music.

But these comments often are met with blank stares. Either the young composers are unaware of the lack of harmonic comprehensibility in their pieces, or they believe that other aspects like instrumentation or dynamics or repetitive design will trump harmony."


----------



## KenOC

Thanks PetrB. I was thinking of that blog (by memory only) in an earlier post.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Thanks PetrB. I was thinking of that blog (by memory only) in an earlier post.


*I credit Mahlerian for sending me the link in a PM. Any thanks should go to Mahlerian.*

John Adams' blog is often huge fun plus some well-said comments on music, the state of, and not unusually, Adams likes and advocates other music which is nothing like his own. It was from one installment I learned of Georg Friederich Haas and his lovely _In Vain,_ for example. I keep forgetting the blog exists


----------



## KenOC

One of my favorites: "Anger Builds at Dudamel's Mishandling of Oil Leak." Well, maybe you had to be in these parts then to appreciate it!

http://www.earbox.com/posts/87


----------



## Ukko

KenOC said:


> One of my favorites: "Anger Builds at Dudamel's Mishandling of Oil Leak." Well, maybe you had to be in these parts then to appreciate it!
> 
> http://www.earbox.com/posts/87


The guy pictured halfway down the page, obviously trying to make us believe he is Alfred E. Newman... who dat?


----------



## PetrB

Wood said:


> Does it matter though, if composers are enjoying themselves? Is there any harm in it?


The following quote became instantly burned into my synapses the moment I heard it:

While visiting the Los Angeles M.O.M.A. I passed by two women standing in front of a Julian Schnabel canvas from his deep application of paint with embedded broken pieces of cheap white dinner plates period. Just as I passed by well within earshot, one commented upon that work to her companion,

----------I'm all for self expression as long as it expresses something to me. :tiphat:

Fledglings of another generation were aware, or were held in check and made painfully aware, if and when their beginning attempts were in the least worthy of some presentation beyond a very small and limited circle of their student peers, their teachers, or the classroom. TC can and may be a virtual room of about the same dimensions for some of those who post pieces here. In the older real room context and format, those beginner's enthusiasm was not damped, but that state of ego in many a beginner who has 'made something' which overrides any good sense of discretion they may have as to whether they were _'expressing some thing to others'_ was allowed time to develop; it was progressively fed while their work improved, and the work and their ability to discern if their work had interest or worth usually grew along with their personal and artistic development.

Composing pieces which sounded like a string of generic cliches from film scores was not part of that circuit -- even in schools where film scoring was an offered discipline -- because writing strings of generic cliches in any genre is almost always an extremely inauspicious start - i.e., whether a high school comp class as a side-feature of band, or a college comp course, expectations were, up front, for a quality of greater interest in those beginner level pieces than what often shows up on TC.



Wood said:


> Is this any different to all the turgid blogs that have appeared on't 'net in the last few years?


Not really, and as you say it is just not music; blogs, really dreadful artwork, bad poetry, hopelessly uninteresting stories and novels, off the wall political and social commentary, etc. abound, too -- it seems to an older generation that a younger generation have been brought up and conditioned to believe that just about any and all they do or come up with is of extreme merit and of real interest to others, including just being and not doing much else -- even being a jerk has become considered a noteworthy or fame worthy thing, as long as it focuses attention on the jerk (MTv's _Real World_ had a lot to do with that).

On facebook, I saw a post which is the perfect manifestation of the new _"Others will find anything at all which I do or make interesting"_ school on Facebook: the fact someone had a scone and a cappuccino in a nearby coffee shop on their mid-morning work break was somehow thought to be an interesting enough event for that person to stop, with their phone take a photo of the scone and coffee on the table, then take the time to go online on the phone, upload the photo to Facebook, and post it -- before ever taking a sip or a bite. Lol. (That also made me, already a bit reticent about FB, a very occasional user with am extremely limited number of contacts.) I could say there are too many 'deposits' in today's composers which are the parallel equivalent of that photo of the scone and cappuccino -- that photo was in no way 'artful,' btw.

So much not good or interesting writing, artwork, music, etc. has always been around, those who do it, as you said, doing it more to have a good time for themselves than anything else (I don't begrudge any one who is having and making their own kind of fun.) But from the 'old times' to the times of iPhone, internet, Facebook and Youtube, never before have such slight and unskilled hobby efforts, in such great numbers, been so widely disseminated and "shared."

In real life the opposite is the reality, i.e. very little of what anyone does is of much real interest to others. The slighter end of the results of a hobby, when shown to friends and acquaintances, get polite nods while honest commentary is highly edited or withheld, and very few are put in that particularly uncomfortable position of being shown such stuff and the eagerly asked -- with the full bore of the gaze of creator of the work in question upon them-- "Well, what do you think of it?"

Like those mentioned Blogs, you can see that a number of pieces in Today's Composers have had a fair number of looks by those who are both curious and hopeful in what they may find, while often a piece will have a number of viewers and 0 comments. Other pieces get one or two brief comments. No response is also a response, but it is also clear that no matter what, some constant contributors show no change or improvement from piece to piece; while they appear to be asking for constructive comment or critique they actually want none at all. Just as it is with many a blog and the bloggers, many a piece is 'looked at' for one or two seconds until the viewer backs out of the thread without making any comment -- because there really is nothing to say about the piece.

Other than the highly increased numbers of disappointments or downright turn-offs in ratio to those few pieces which hold interest, that is my only real not at all tragic plaint. I wasn't expecting mature masterworks from professionals on TC, but I did hope for and expect far more young composers (working within as well as outside of academe) who would be showing as being fairly well along the way to being good and interesting composers than I have seen. That makes for picking through a lot more pieces which are between "meh" to "bleech," and that is a bit disheartening. One can always wish for and hope for more


----------



## Ukko

Hah. I have learned to avoid 'opening' those threads. Not because I dislike the music - dislike is too strong a word - but because I am unable to find anything to praise in it.


----------



## mtmailey

I find composing on computer much easier & faster.The software i use has templates with it.Now doing it the old way is hard you have to draw lines for measures & have to write in others like clefs,sharps,flats & so on.


----------



## PetrB

mtmailey said:


> I find composing on computer much easier & faster.The software i use has templates with it.Now doing it the old way is hard you have to draw lines for measures & have to write in others like clefs,sharps,flats & so on.


Oh, poor you. what a hardship 

I suppose whether or not one finds the computer easier is dependent upon your having a fair amount of regular and long term practice with notating by hand. The situation now has it that many have little command of writing by hand, and without having that learning and practiced experience of a good several years with regular exercise, plop, they've got a computer with notation software.

What you wrote of, making it seem a hardship, is a auto-pilot reflexive act and a very minor and quickly done task for those practiced in hand writing notation. I can set up a line of mixed meter measures, have a sense of the actual music and note values that will fill the line, look well-spaces and readable, and have a near perfect justified margin, all in a very tidy first draft which is just as likely the presentable final draft -- but I've got a lot of practice hand drafting behind that. Ditto for templates -- I have no need whatsoever for them, and they do not appear to me as 'a convenience.'

I find it much faster to hand write than to input into a computer, though to be fair I have negligible practice at the latter so far and would expect for learning the program, then recall and practice to have their usual desired effect -- gaining a readier deftness, fluency and speed with the program.

When I use a computer to notate, it is much faster for me to input the music via a midi keyboard (you have to be a competent and consistent player for that), and then go to work on sorting out the scoring in the computer.

These software programs are not great with guessing much of anything rhythmic beyond standard sixteenths or triplets, and they don't take midi data and 'figure' ties over a bar line well at all. Any and all things more outside a limited set of basic "common practice standard" of rhythmic parameters, the software then usually requires about two and a half to three steps I would call "extra" and unnecessary vs. what one can quickly do straightaway by hand; 
1,) the OS first guesses, does not get the quintuplet (in the space of a quarter note) at all right (clusters two of the five notes in a configuration of four sixteenths) which you then have to tell it to _undo._ 
2,) you then have to 'drive the machine' -- tell it this is a quintuplet, and the running order of which of the two pitches it clustered under one sixteenth you want. That is a pain in the ____.

I've heard Sibelius lets you set up more parameters to accommodate both your more frequently used rhythmic devices and other 'less common practice regular' notational aspects, so once preset it will notate them as you wish without having to first undo and redo, etc.

But some of the hand write vs. computer for speed is clearly generational, an older generation practiced and adept at handwriting prior the appearance of notation software, those who come to music in their earlier stages already having the computer inevitably default to finding the computer handier, lacking the practiced skills of those who know well how to do it by hand.

I think everyone agrees that when it comes to deleting or inserting a measure in an already developed score, or getting players parts from the score, and / or making quick revisions on those, the computer is not only faster, but a major boon.


----------



## violadude

I think writing by hand frees your creativity in a sense because when you write by hand you can literally notate anything you want. With a computer program you are limited to what you can figure out how to input and I think many people get into a habit of letting what they know how to program in the computer dictate what they produce composition-wise.


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> I think writing by hand frees your creativity in a sense because when you write by hand you can literally notate anything you want. With a computer program you are limited to what you can figure out how to input and I think many people get into a habit of letting what they know how to program in the computer dictate what they produce composition-wise.


This is a widespread phemomeon: Whether it is drawing or writing music, those who do not have first-hand experience with the real art materials, paper, canvas, and media, oil, water-color, pastel, etc. and _how those behave_ are often capitulating / acquiescing _to what the computer does most basically and readily._

This is a direct analogy and the same dynamic when it comes to writing and notating music, and what those without those skills, and practice in them, miss by simply doing 'what the computer most readily and handily does.' Most often, this affects what rhythms, note values and subdivisions the computer composer uses. (Muse Score will not even _render_ a quintuplet, for example, and it seems there is just no way of getting around it.)


----------



## juergen

violadude said:


> I think writing by hand frees your creativity in a sense because when you write by hand you can literally notate anything you want.


It frees your creativity especially if you do not even think of the notation of the piece while composing. About the notation of a piece I'm thinking only when the piece is finished. And I mean completely finished. And I do that only when I need the sheet music at all, for example, if the piece shall be performed. In all other cases the documentation by means of a MIDI file is absolutely sufficient.


----------



## Mahlerian

PetrB said:


> (Muse Score will not even _render_ a quintuplet, for example, and it seems there is just no way of getting around it.)


Yes it will. My piece for alto flute uses lots of them.


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> Yes it will. My piece for alto flute uses lots of them.


I looked at MuseScore several years ago, the free (limited) version. It is probable that some tweaks have been done to it since then. Finale, as per user feedback, has revised / improved / added to its capabilities over the years, too.


----------

