# Composers' relationships to past repertoire



## Lilijana (Dec 17, 2019)

In another thread this really interesting question came up:



Enthusiast said:


> ... Don't most composers compose in relation to (and with knowledge of and opinions about) the music that has come before them? ...





composer jess said:


> ...
> 
> I think modern composers are much more pre-occupied with older repertoire than older composers ever were because our music being composed _today_ exists in a world which has so much repertoire from centuries of history readily accessible, regularly performed, discussed in academia and assimilated somewhat into popular culture as well. The modern composer lives in a world where historical works of art have been commodified for contemporary mass consumption.
> 
> I don't want to stray too far from the topic of the thread, but I feel as if there is (for composers who write for the concert hall) a rather sad feeling that we have to almost _justify_ the existence of new works when there's already so much old stuff everyone already plays. This wasn't really the case prior to the commodification and 'mechanical reproduction' of art (to use Walter Benjamin's term) where composers were _really_ writing music that was undoubtedly contemporary and much freer from comparison to any 'traditional' repertoire.


Any other thoughts on the matter? Curious to know what people think about composers' works and their relationship to past repertoire in different points of history.

I'm also interested to know if anyone perceives that there is almost a need, now more than ever, to 'justify' the existence of new compositions in the context outlined in my quoted reply.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Nowadays, and virtually for the past century+, many composers have been trying to give value to their work by being different, no matter what it takes. Not necessarily innovation, which is typically meaningful and gets spread, but weirdization, which is unique, but creates a niche that only it inhabits. This is the main observable effect of the cult of innovation, which grew stronger and stronger over the history of classical music, and turned composition into a game of musical chairs. Whoever composes a note (or "note") that has already been composed by someone else---loses!

Also, classical music is getting more and more complex, and has been getting so, for the past 200 years. This slows down everyone. If every chord or cluster is a cathedral of sound, then creating a fluent path between such structures becomes exponentially harder.

Some revolt at this, by creating less elaborate music, but then they encounter that so many musical combinations have already been "taken", that they end up either with inferior sister compositions to the works of the past, or "new ones" that accomplish only being weirder than what came before.

I think that the only way to really justify one's music is to compose something that people will actually want to hear in a concert hall, or otherwise listen to, over the classics. Something that shares the great qualities of the works that remain at least reasonably popular among _both _audiences and musicians.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Lachenmann said



> A composer who doesn't search for his own path through historical composition, music theory, and instrumentation practice is a dilettante. He should just give up.


But that's not what you meant really. I must say, I don't entirely agree with you. Many of the composers I value most don't seem to be related to tradition in a significant way. Eliane Radigue's Occam pieces, for example, seem wholly original to me. And same for the small scale pieces by Laurence Crane.

Just by coincidence I was listening to a piece by Cassandra Miller, Duet for cello and orchestra. And I came across this review which firmly locates some of the value of the music in the exploration of an old form, the concerto.

http://5against4.com/2015/06/26/cassandra-miller-duet-for-cello-and-orchestra-world-premiere/


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

> I think modern composers are much more pre-occupied with older repertoire than older composers ever were because our music being composed today exists in a world which has so much repertoire from centuries of history readily accessible, regularly performed, discussed in academia and assimilated somewhat into popular culture as well.


For much of modern music, my impression is that the composers are preoccupied with older repertoire only insofar as to make sure their music sounds nothing like it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

DaveM said:


> For much of modern music, my impression is that the composers are preoccupied with older repertoire only insofar as to make sure their music sounds nothing like it.


That's my impression as well. I think it could be a marketing ploy. Like rock musicians when they say they were inspired by those blues legends to give their music a higher air of respectability.


----------



## Lilijana (Dec 17, 2019)

I brought up a related concept to 'marketing' through mentioning Walter Benjamin's idea of mechanical reproduction of art. Perhaps the perception of it being a 'marketing ploy' is because of this.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

This is interesting regarding this topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Berlioz#Works
[ "In his 1983 book The Musical Language of Berlioz, Julian Rushton asks "where Berlioz comes in the history of musical forms and what is his progeny". Rushton's answers to these questions are "nowhere" and "none". He cites well-known studies of musical history in which Berlioz is mentioned only in passing or not at all, and suggests that this is partly because Berlioz had no models among his predecessors and was a model to none of his successors. "In his works, as in his life, Berlioz was a lone wolf". Forty years earlier, Sir Thomas Beecham, a lifelong proponent of Berlioz's music, commented similarly, writing that although, for example, Mozart was a greater composer, his music drew on the works of his predecessors, whereas Berlioz's works were all wholly original: "the Symphonie fantastique or La Damnation de Faust broke upon the world like some unaccountable effort of spontaneous generation which had dispensed with the machinery of normal parentage".
Rushton suggests that "Berlioz's way is neither architectural nor developmental, but illustrative". He judges this to be part of a continuing French musical aesthetic, favouring a "decorative" - rather than the German "architectural" - approach to composition. Abstraction and discursiveness are alien to this tradition, and in operas, and to a large extent in orchestral music, there is little continuous development; instead self-contained numbers or sections are preferred.
Berlioz's compositional techniques have been strongly criticised and equally strongly defended. It is common ground for critics and defenders that his approach to harmony and musical structure conforms to no established rules; his detractors ascribe this to ignorance, and his proponents to independent-minded adventurousness. His approach to rhythm caused perplexity to conservatively-inclined contemporaries; he hated the phrase carrée - the unvaried four- or eight-bar phrase - and introduced new varieties of rhythm to his music. He explained his practice in an 1837 article: accenting weak beats at the expense of the strong, alternating triple and duple groups of notes and using unexpected rhythmic themes independent of the main melody. Macdonald writes that Berlioz was a natural melodist, but that his rhythmic sense led him away from regular phrase lengths; he "spoke naturally in a kind of flexible musical prose, with surprise and contour important elements".
Berlioz's approach to harmony and counterpoint was idiosyncratic, and has provoked adverse criticism. Pierre Boulez commented, "There are awkward harmonies in Berlioz that make one scream". In Rushton's analysis, most of Berlioz's melodies have "clear tonal and harmonic implications" but the composer sometimes chose not to harmonise accordingly. Rushton observes that Berlioz's preference for irregular rhythm subverts conventional harmony: "Classic and romantic melody usually implies harmonic motion of some consistency and smoothness; Berlioz's aspiration to musical prose tends to resist such consistency."" ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Berlioz#Changing_reputation
[ "Orthodox opinion emphasised supposed technical defects in the music and ascribed to the composer characteristics that he did not possess. Debussy called him "a monster ... not a musician at all. He creates the illusion of music by means borrowed from literature and painting"." ]

https://books.google.ca/books?id=D3RtDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123
[ "It is perhaps not surprising that the music of Berlioz, that most atypical of Frenchmen, was held in low regard. While praising his innovative orchestral technique, Ravel often found his harmony clumsy, and once observed that Berlioz was "a genius who couldn't harmonize a waltz correctly."" ]


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> This is interesting regarding this topic:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Berlioz#Works
> [ "In his 1983 book The Musical Language of Berlioz, Julian Rushton asks "where Berlioz comes in the history of musical forms and what is his progeny". Rushton's answers to these questions are "nowhere" and "none". He cites well-known studies of musical history in which Berlioz is mentioned only in passing or not at all, and suggests that this is partly because Berlioz had no models among his predecessors and was a model to none of his successors. "In his works, as in his life, Berlioz was a lone wolf."


But (from the 'Hector Berlioz Website'):
'Though a late-comer to Beethoven, Berlioz was quick to grasp the significance of what he heard. The impact of Beethoven on Berlioz in 1828 and after can be traced through the composer's correspondence: references to Beethoven suddenly multiply and are particularly frequent in the letters of 1829 and 1830. Almost from the start Beethoven's stature was self-evident to Berlioz: 'immense', 'colossal', 'sublime', 'a giant', 'a Titan', these are the words that constantly recur under his pen now and later, and Beethoven's works are regularly described by him as 'marvels'. Beethoven's slow movements impressed him particularly, and evoked for Berlioz the metaphor of an eagle soaring aloft. In a letter to his father he writes 'this is no longer music but a new art' (CG no. 107; 20 December 1828). True to his method, he started to study Beethoven's scores and soon knew them intimately: in time he probably knew all the published music of Beethoven. _*Though Weber outclassed Beethoven in the dexterity and inventiveness of his orchestral writing, Beethoven became for Berlioz the touchstone of all instrumental music.'*_

While the comment about Berlioz' superiority in orchestral writing is (highly) questionable, the above suggests that Berlioz was influenced by Beethoven though IMO any similarity to his music is subtle at best.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I wonder how conscious avant garde composers are of needing to do something different to create a market for themselves?

I guess composers who primarily want to sell their music to the wider classical audience would compose music that audiences would find fresh but not too new or challenging. Perhaps they would aim for the "if you like Shostakovich ..." audience. They would still need to have their own voice - something that probably involves considerable talent - but if they have this I guess choosing this path would make career sense. I hear MacMillan's music as being of this type but, of course, cannot _know _much about his motivation in writing it (except that it seems to be connected to the religious). Maybe his music is how he hears his inner voice or maybe he is consciously chasing an existing audience. To be fair to him I think it is probably the former. But a composer like John Williams is probably much more conscious of "composing what people want to hear".

But when it comes to avant garde composers, I do find it hard to imagine that they are merely struggling to make music unlike any music that has come before. They might be but why would they? There would be little point and no advantages. There has to be more to it ... or why bother with such a difficult route along which the main reward for most will be obscurity? It seems more likely to me that they might want to write in response to some aspects of our lives now, things that are new in themselves. And, if this is what they are doing, perhaps they recognise a need for a new language to do so effectively. Or perhaps it is the other way around? Perhaps they hear new sounds and new ways with structure and perhaps that "vision" leads them to write the music that they do. It is probably the latter: I imagine composers "think" in music.

I do think that the vast majority of today's composers - and possibly including these who claim not to be - are writing within a tradition and, as classical music increasingly becomes a specialised niche in itself, often in direct response to that tradition. But I don't think that is enough in itself. It sounds incestuous to me. But it would be strange if composers writing today were not very aware of the tradition and did not have responses to it - its forms, its ambitions, the story of its development.

I sometimes think about the career of Peter Maxwell Davies. He started as a leading member of a British avant garde group and produced some striking and iconic pieces in the late 60s and early 70s. He was almost a household name for the music loving public in Britain. At that time he seemed very much a member of a group and very much present on the scene (even though he held positions in USA and Australia). He brought together his own ensemble, The Fires of London. But then he became somewhat reclusive, settling in the Orkneys. His music became much more concerned with traditional forms (symphonies, string quartets, concertos) and less entertaining. I think it is fair to say he became a rather obscure figure but he was sufficiently recognised among those who valued contemporary music to receive regular commissions. I don't think he was that well received by a wider audience, even those who were open to and enjoyed the new. His music was serious and tough - but made no memorable gestures. I guess he made a good enough living and no doubt loved Orkney life. But he did not become the big figure on the scene that he had once seemed destined to be. I think some are now coming around to valuing his work highly but there are still few recordings (one each of many of his major works but even three of his symphonies have not been recorded) let alone concert performances. Most of the major figures of his time have had major works recorded two or more times and are far more likely to have had all their major pieces recorded at least once. It is still by no means certain that anyone will remember him in 50 years time. Or it may be that he will be discovered as a major voice. Who knows? I do wonder if he was happy with his career and how highly he expected his reputation to settle at.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I believe that among the consequences resulting from Leonard Meyer's exposition of the New Stasis in music and the arts, is the notion that, now, all possible niches are filled, and filled immediately. The ubiquity of instant communication and the lack of islands of relative quiet where new ideas can be worked upon and tried out upon a small audience and among a peer group of artists, guarantees that ''profound'' new art disappears almost without a trace into the white noise of the hissing background. It is a tribute to Meyer's acumen that he sensed the growing reality of the New Stasis years before the Internet made the rapid flow (or dissipation) of artistic singularity essentially both instantaneous and inescapable, and guaranteed the inevitability of the correctness of his insight.

"Satellites transmit the latest thrill; we can't escape the media overkill." The Scorpions, _Media Overkill_


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I wonder how conscious avant garde composers are of needing to do something different to create a market for themselves?
> 
> I guess composers who primarily want to sell their music to the wider classical audience would compose music that audiences would find fresh but not too new or challenging. Perhaps they would aim for the "if you like Shostakovich ..." audience. They would still need to have their own voice - something that probably involves considerable talent - but if they have this I guess choosing this path would make career sense. I hear MacMillan's music as being of this type but, of course, cannot _know _much about his motivation in writing it (except that it seems to be connected to the religious). Maybe his music is how he hears his inner voice or maybe he is consciously chasing an existing audience. To be fair to him I think it is probably the former. But a composer like John Williams is probably much more conscious of "composing what people want to hear".
> 
> ...


Insofar as traditional classical music has involved melody, harmony and some sort of structure, composers who want to be part of that tradition will compose likewise albeit with their own originality, as difficult as that must be these days.

On the other hand, I don't think avant-garde composers have any interest in composing using the 3 elements above, or any other, traditional elements and thus, are making music unlike any that has come before. From what I can tell, it is an investigation into sounds, noise, volume, pitch and timbre and, as such, IMO, bears little relationship to anything I've known as classical music. I actually believe the premise that they are attempting to compose in a new language which is why I don't believe the result is CM. Also, since the melody, harmony and the structure of traditional CM has been removed, I doubt that the rigorous traditional education required of CM composers in the past is necessary to compose much of what's called avant-garde. (Fr'instance, you won't hear much in the way of things like counterpoint. )


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

composer jess said:


> In another thread this really interesting question came up:
> 
> Any other thoughts on the matter? Curious to know what people think about composers' works and their relationship to past repertoire in different points of history.
> 
> I'm also interested to know if anyone perceives that there is almost a need, now more than ever, to 'justify' the existence of new compositions in the context outlined in my quoted reply.


Originally Posted by *Enthusiast*



> .. Don't most composers compose in relation to (and with knowledge of and opinions about) the music that has come before them? ....


While the desire to create is innate, no one comes out of the womb knowing organizational methods. That's why composers study the music of the past. Take Brahms for instance. He never stopped studying the music of past masters and as a consequence he improved his compositional skills. That's how it's done I think. Or to put it another way - I've known a number of composers in my life. A common trait to them all is a vast knowledge of the past repertoire, a foundation built on years of practice on primary and secondary instruments. If you don't know the past, how do you know if you're not repeating it?

As far as justification goes.....it is far easier to justify a logical organizational method. Lately, I have been working through the Brahms Trio in C Minor Opus 101. Nearly seven minutes of cellular and thematic development over a changing tonal landscape.....and everything you hear....including the contrasting theme....is derived from the first four bars. It's a tight, concise organizational structure in which Brahms could justify every note. I find that to be a fascinating idea!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Insofar as traditional classical music has involved melody, harmony and some sort of structure, composers who want to be part of that tradition will compose likewise albeit with their own originality, as difficult as that must be these days.
> 
> On the other hand, I don't think avant-garde composers have any interest in composing using the 3 elements above, or any other, traditional elements and thus, are making music unlike any that has come before. From what I can tell, it is an investigation into sounds, noise, volume, pitch and timbre and, as such, IMO, bears little relationship to anything I've known as classical music. I actually believe the premise that they are attempting to compose in a new language which is why I don't believe the result is CM. Also, since the melody, harmony and the structure of traditional CM has been removed, I doubt that the rigorous traditional education required of CM composers in the past is necessary to compose much of what's called avant-garde. (Fr'instance, you won't hear much in the way of things like counterpoint. )


Sorry, Dave, but I can't relate to this. I can't think of music that doesn't have melody or harmony or structure in some form. There may be some and I may be avoiding it, too! Most avant garde music I know may not have the same melodic and harmonic qualities (or styles, really) that you enjoy but that's another matter. I'm not sure how anything can lack structure. Also, I can't think of any noted composer who didn't study classical music (including the music of the past) deeply - but I can think of several noted modern and avant garde composers who excelled in performing music from earlier periods. Many - as noted in the OP - respond directly to their heritage.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

composer jess said:


> I'm also interested to know if anyone perceives that there is almost a need, now more than ever, to 'justify' the existence of new compositions in the context outlined in my quoted reply.


I may have ignored this direct question so far but it has become more relevant to me because of some posts in another thread. Many people can resent that there is music being composed that they don't or can't relate to. I don't really understand why, though. No-one is forced to listen to music they don't like (except in supermarkets and hotel lobbies).

Why should a composer need to justify what they do except to themselves? They might feel a need to "sell" it to the public or some funding body (which goes to my earlier post) but that is about natural desires for an audience (understanding) and a living but that is about their needs. If their music doesn't deliver (for them) then they have a choice - somewhat similar the the one Shostakovich was given by Stalin's henchmen but without the threat of violence - but who in our world might a composer need to justify her/his music to? Themselves or their peers or critics or informed people or concert/opera audiences? And where does posterity versus communicating now come into this?

As a listener I do certainly ask that I am affected by the music I listen to - I'm not at all intellectual about music and am not turned on by concepts in music - but that can take me time. And if it never happens does that mean the music is bad and the composer should be re-educated or shot? What I don't really want from new music is stuff that "does to me" what older music already does only less well. There is lots of great old music and I will never know it all. I expect the new to be new. And, given my relative ignorance of pre-Baroque music, I want early music to be a newish experience also! It has been the latter (early music) that I have found the most challenging.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> Why should a composer need to justify what they do except to themselves? They might feel a need to "sell" it to the public or some funding body (which goes to my earlier post) but that is about natural desires for an audience (understanding) and a living but that is about their needs.


I think it's an attitude which leads to self indulgence. What do you make, for example, of this piece of music by a London composer who I know would agree with you (because we've discussed it.)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Self-indulgence ... and the resulting (deserved) obscurity. It's not my business if their art is about drinking huge quantities of beer. I think serious composers will have very high standards and often very strong self-discipline .. sometimes to the detriment of their mental health and their work. But I think it is for them to work through or to invite responses. That's all I mean: I'm more worried about undeserved obscurity.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Self-indulgence ... and the resulting (deserved) obscurity. It's not my business if their art is about drinking huge quantities of beer. I think serious composers will have very high standards and often very strong self-discipline .. sometimes to the detriment of their mental health and their work. But I think it is for them to work through or to invite responses. That's all I mean: I'm more worried about undeserved obscurity.


This guy gets played at Alderburgh Frestival and on BBC Radio 3. And I can assure of one thing: if I introduced you you'd see he's very serious about music!

I'm sure he would justify what he did there in terms of Cagean ideas -- anything can be music, you just have to listen to it _as _music. Listen to some of his other things on youtube, see what you make of it.

And of course, justification in terms of Cage is justification in terms of the past repertoire.

Oh my God, I've just shot myself in the foot.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Fair play to him! Just because his music doesn't interest me doesn't mean I have to begrudge him his success or question his motives. 

I detected the "Cageiness" and, you know, that short of thing doesn't do it for me. I appreciated Cage in the same way that I appreciated Duchamp - they made a point - but I don't get much out of their followers. A lot of people do, though, so who am I to rubbish them? Being aware of it (thank you) and knowing it is not my bag is enough for me. Maybe one day I will have an epiphany.

One thing I do wonder is whether there are not many others doing the same sort of thing and not being noticed. But speaking that out loud (as I just did) is a little like saying that serialism leads to music that sounds like a child banging random notes - something many say but I know to be untrue.


----------

