# "Sempre Con Fuoco." My personal statement of cultural resistance.



## macgeek2005

One day last quarter, after departing from an Ethnomusicology lecture, this storm erupted in my head, fueled by a desire to preserve the heights of Western art. This piece of music expresses my desperate hatred towards all which threatens to overwhelm or diminish the prominence of beautiful, tonal Western classical music.

It is my personal statement of cultural defense and resistance. It also happens to be the fourth movement of my new string quartet, but it is absolutely a stand alone piece as well, which is why I gave it its own thread.

Edit: Oh, and it's in sonata form... for anyone who likes to know up front.






http://freepdfhosting.com/f4f06745aa.pdf


----------



## StevenOBrien

I was a little reluctant to post feedback on this because it's difficult to gauge how much is missing from an actual performance of the work and how much is missing from the composition itself. I'll share some thoughts on it, but take them with a grain of salt.

With regards to the form of the work, having the second theme in G minor instead of Eb major or even G major feels a little strange, and I don't think it provides enough of a contrast from the main theme. I even had to look at the score to figure out where the second theme actually began. In fact, even the character of it makes it feel much more like you've skipped the second theme altogether and just skipped into the exposition's codetta. As a result of this, I think the movement feels rather flat and static throughout and I find myself starting to bore a little as it progresses.

Now, again, this could be an issue with your samples, but I also felt a lot of the constant tremolo throughout contributed to the static quality of it all. For whatever reason, the harmonic progressions also started to feel a little dull after a while too.

I love the build up to the recapitulation, very well done . Entirely subjective, but I think you should add a high C to the final chord in the first violin, as that G is just dying to resolve upwards.

Overall, I got the sense that there was a general lack of contrast. The material you have isn't bad, but it could become much better if you played around a little more to figure out how it can be best framed dramatically with regards to the form. A good effort, I'll have to listen to the other movements you've posted when I get a chance.


----------



## Couchie

Tonal music is not dead, and will never die, but your style mimicking a long past classical era certainly is. It comes off as morbid and artificial as your music is simply not birthed from the cultural context that makes the classical masters' achievements so great. We preserve the "heights of Western art" by listening, performing and appreciating authentic music from those eras, not by parodying it, beating a dead horse trying to write it ourselves.


----------



## macgeek2005

Couchie said:


> Tonal music is not dead, and will never die, but your style mimicking a long past classical era certainly is. It comes off as morbid and artificial as your music is simply not birthed from the cultural context that makes the classical masters' achievements so great. We preserve the "heights of Western art" by listening, performing and appreciating authentic music from those eras, not by parodying it, beating a dead horse trying to write it ourselves.


Thank you for this input.

I do what I do because the classical music community as a whole scarcely loves anything written after 1900 as much as they love their favorites from pre-1900. I go back to what is loved, not with the intention of staying there indefinitely, but with the intention of rebooting the process of musical evolution a century or two so that we can try a different course that will maintain beauty this time, and will result in packed concert halls full of excited audiences for the premiers of new works.


----------



## juergen

macgeek2005 said:


> I do what I do because the classical music community as a whole scarcely loves anything written after 1900 as much as they love their favorites from pre-1900. I go back to what is loved, not with the intention of staying there indefinitely, but with the intention of rebooting the process of musical evolution a century or two so that we can try a different course that will maintain beauty this time, and will result in packed concert halls full of excited audiences for the premiers of new works.


I wish you much success on your mission. But one thing must be clear: If you want to go that way, it will not be sufficient just to reach the level of the old masters. You will need to exceed that level. Otherwise, the people will always prefer the original. The worst thing that can happen to you is that people are saying about your music: "Oh, that' nice, it really sounds like...".

Your music is the master's level quite close and I really enjoyed it. But to "reboot the process of musical evolution" you need something different.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

macgeek2005 said:


> Thank you for this input.
> 
> I do what I do because the classical music community as a whole scarcely loves anything written after 1900 as much as they love their favorites from pre-1900. I go back to what is loved, not with the intention of staying there indefinitely, but with the intention of rebooting the process of musical evolution a century or two so that we can try a different course that will maintain beauty this time, and will result in packed concert halls full of excited audiences for the premiers of new works.


But you must remember that when audiences go to concerts to hear new music the expect new music. Not old music. Even at the premiere of Stravinsky's The Rake's Progress the audience was shocked at how the music sounded. They were expecting something very modern sounding, but instead they got Stravinskyised Mozart.

In the music world today, composers' music will be laughed off the stage if it doesn't reflect the era we are living in now. It might sound harsh, but people don't want to hear old sounding music when the program says "World Premiere." Don't be caught up in writing music with a key point of being accessible because you will end up being labelled as a composer of easy listening music. People look down on those kind. Be innovative, be creative! Don't become a composer of easy listening music.


----------



## macgeek2005

juergen said:


> I wish you much success on your mission. But one thing must be clear: If you want to go that way, it will not be sufficient just to reach the level of the old masters. You will need to exceed that level. Otherwise, the people will always prefer the original. The worst thing that can happen to you is that people are saying about your music: "Oh, that' nice, it really sounds like...".
> 
> Your music is the master's level quite close and I really enjoyed it. But to "reboot the process of musical evolution" you need something different.


I don't need to exceed the level of the old masters. Nobody will ever do that in that style. They reached the pinnacle of that style.

However, if Mozart lived another 30 years, we would have 30 more years of masterpieces from him. Not all the "pinnacle-class" tonal music that was possible was written. We lost an incalculable amount.

But that's not even the point. The point is that most classical music goers would rather hear a new symphony that sounds like an early Mozart symphony, than hear one of those pieces that requires a 20 minute spoken introduction in order to make it even a little bit comprehensible.

People expect new music when they see "world premiere" but they wish it weren't so. They wish that they could believe that maybe This world premiere will actually be a piece of beautiful music rather than a pile of self-indulgent rubbish.

So I don't need to reach the level of Mozart.... I only need to go back to that style and get people thinking from that point again in terms of where they want to evolve to... and hopefully this time in a direction that won't completely alienate the audience.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

macgeek2005 said:


> I don't need to exceed the level of the old masters. Nobody will ever do that in that style. They reached the pinnacle of that style.
> 
> However, if Mozart lived another 30 years, we would have 30 more years of masterpieces from him. Not all the "pinnacle-class" tonal music that was possible was written. We lost an incalculable amount.
> 
> But that's not even the point. The point is that most classical music goers would rather hear a new symphony that sounds like an early Mozart symphony, than hear one of those pieces that requires a 20 minute spoken introduction in order to make it even a little bit comprehensible.
> 
> People expect new music when they see "world premiere" but they wish it weren't so. They wish that they could believe that maybe This world premiere will actually be a piece of beautiful music rather than a pile of self-indulgent rubbish.
> 
> So I don't need to reach the level of Mozart.... I only need to go back to that style and get people thinking from that point again in terms of where they want to evolve to... and hopefully this time in a direction that won't completely alienate the audience.


You don't have to be avant-garde, you just have to be less conservative in your view. You sound like some extremely conservative music critic than a composer. If you want to be a composer of easy listening rubbish, be my guest. You would be looked down upon for not bein original in your style. People would much rather hear Mozart than your imitation of Mozart. Solution? DON'T WRITE LIKE MOZART! You have to know that there _is_ an audience for new music. You might not like modern classical music just yet, but when you start appreciating it more, you might find yourself looking for your own original compositional voice.


----------



## Pizzicato

Modern classical music. Pah!


I would prefer to listen to stuff like that more than today's classical music. Seriously I enjoyed the listen a lot and would really like to hear a real String Quartet playing it.


----------



## juergen

macgeek2005 said:


> However, if Mozart lived another 30 years, we would have 30 more years of masterpieces from him. Not all the "pinnacle-class" tonal music that was possible was written. We lost an incalculable amount.
> 
> But that's not even the point. The point is that most classical music goers would rather hear a new symphony that sounds like an early Mozart symphony, than hear one of those pieces that requires a 20 minute spoken introduction in order to make it even a little bit comprehensible.


I see your point, Lennon. You see the discrepancy between what the average concert goers like to hear on the one hand and what kind of music the contemporary composers deliver on the other hand. And actually that's really a pretty strange situation today: The composers produces stuff that only a handfull of people like to hear and the masses are running to the Mozart and Beethoven concerts. One can very easily get the idea to provide the people with new music in a style which they obviously like. But this is not so easy.

Most people go to Mozart concerts because they are Mozart concerts. I doubt very much that they would go there with the same enthusiasm if somebody would tell them that this is the music from a contemporary composer (of course that kind of experiment can't be done because everyone knows the music of Mozart and would recognize it).

And yes, if Mozart lived another 30 years, we would have 30 more years of masterpieces from him. And the people (me included) would love them. But you can't turn back the time. Trying to finish the unfinished job of Mozart won't work. It's much too late for this.

But maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe you are going to be a new star composer. Then one day I'll be probably proud that I had the chance to talk to you today. The only thing I wanted to say is that the intention to reboot the musical evolution is almost a "Mission Impossible". This task would be too big even for a genius master composer, at least as long as he is alone. You would need to form an army of Mozarts and Beethovens for this mission.

Anyway, I'm on your side and I would like to see you succeed.
Best regards
Jürgen


----------



## PetrB

zOMG, the self-appointed / anointed composer against all musical progress post Vivaldi, cum silent movie accompaniment cliches.

Keep on dreaming, but there is, no matter how 'deft', no worthwhile 'information' about music or innately and directly musical material in this quartet movement. 

It is a retro-reaction by one who cannot write very originally, or differently, not a call to preserve the old ways.

It is a string of tired cliches, not freshly re-done at that.

Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid.


----------



## PetrB

juergen said:


> I see your point, Lennon. You see the discrepancy between what the average concert goers like to hear on the one hand and what kind of music the contemporary composers deliver on the other hand. And actually that's really a pretty strange situation today: The composers produces stuff that only a handfull of people like to hear and the masses are running to the Mozart and Beethoven concerts. One can very easily get the idea to provide the people with new music in a style which they obviously like. But this is not so easy.
> 
> Most people go to Mozart concerts because they are Mozart concerts. I doubt very much that they would go there with the same enthusiasm if somebody would tell them that this is the music from a contemporary composer (of course that kind of experiment can't be done because everyone knows the music of Mozart and would recognize it).
> 
> And yes, if Mozart lived another 30 years, we would have 30 more years of masterpieces from him. And the people (me included) would love them. But you can't turn back the time. Trying to finish the unfinished job of Mozart won't work. It's much too late for this.
> 
> But maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe you are going to be a new star composer. Then one day I'll be probably proud that I had the chance to talk to you today. The only thing I wanted to say is that the intention to reboot the musical evolution is almost a "Mission Impossible". This task would be too big even for a genius master composer, at least as long as he is alone. You would need to form an army of Mozarts and Beethovens for this mission.
> 
> Anyway, I'm on your side and I would like to see you succeed.
> Best regards
> Jürgen


You are laboring under a grievous misconception that both Mozart and Beethoven were 'popular' and 'populist' composers. In their own time, they were consumed and loved by a tiny minority, each having later lost large numbers of that audience as their music progressed and developed in harmonic language and form. They were modern composers of their day, and a good deal of their audiences were very much like the audiences who do enjoy the contemporary music of our day.

They became popular, more generally, only one or more hundred years after their deaths.

Big error in historic perspective, young feller, or rather, big error in what you know of music history.


----------



## macgeek2005

juergen said:


> I see your point, Lennon. You see the discrepancy between what the average concert goers like to hear on the one hand and what kind of music the contemporary composers deliver on the other hand. And actually that's really a pretty strange situation today: The composers produces stuff that only a handfull of people like to hear and the masses are running to the Mozart and Beethoven concerts. One can very easily get the idea to provide the people with new music in a style which they obviously like. But this is not so easy.
> 
> Most people go to Mozart concerts because they are Mozart concerts. I doubt very much that they would go there with the same enthusiasm if somebody would tell them that this is the music from a contemporary composer (of course that kind of experiment can't be done because everyone knows the music of Mozart and would recognize it).
> 
> And yes, if Mozart lived another 30 years, we would have 30 more years of masterpieces from him. And the people (me included) would love them. But you can't turn back the time. Trying to finish the unfinished job of Mozart won't work. It's much too late for this.
> 
> But maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe you are going to be a new star composer. Then one day I'll be probably proud that I had the chance to talk to you today. The only thing I wanted to say is that the intention to reboot the musical evolution is almost a "Mission Impossible". This task would be too big even for a genius master composer, at least as long as he is alone. You would need to form an army of Mozarts and Beethovens for this mission.
> 
> Anyway, I'm on your side and I would like to see you succeed.
> Best regards
> Jürgen


People go to Mozart concerts because the heavenly beauty of the music moves them. They may be skeptical at first being told that a contemporary composer has composed music in that style, but when they begin to attend a few concerts and realize that lo and behold, a contemporary composer has actually created new music for the sake of beautiful art, rather than for the sake of an overly-explicit and self-indulgent expression of a twisted and mechanical ego, they will begin to trust that it can actually happen, and begin to excitedly attend such concerts in greater numbers.

And let me clarify, I never expect to be the Mozart or Beethoven of the musical renaissance that I hope to start. I hope only to start it, and I have the confidence that with as many talented and trained people as there are in the world today, one of them will compose music as brilliant and beautiful as the greatest which has ever been composed.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

macgeek2005 said:


> People go to Mozart concerts because the heavenly beauty of the music moves them. They may be skeptical at first being told that a contemporary composer has composed music in that style, but when they begin to attend a few concerts and realize that lo and behold, a contemporary composer has actually created new music for the sake of beautiful art, rather than for the sake of an overly-explicit and self-indulgent expression of a twisted and mechanical ego, they will begin to trust that it can actually happen, and begin to excitedly attend such concerts in greater numbers.
> 
> And let me clarify, I never expect to be the Mozart or Beethoven of the musical renaissance that I hope to start. I hope only to start it, and I have the confidence that with as many talented and trained people as there are in the world today, one of them will compose music as brilliant and beautiful as the greatest which has ever been composed.


You sound like a conservative audience. Composing in the style of the old dead guys from 200+ years ago is only good for the composer in the early learning stages of composition. Imitation is the way I believe everyone should learn. But when one starts to master the style of the old dead guys I believe it is time for them to move away from that and learn about what is happening in the Here and Now, rather than what happened in the Europe 200+ years ago. I think you compose well and I think you are ready to explore and learn about the world of composition today and become part of today's musical society rather than 200+ years ago's society. If you want to be recognised today you must be original in your thought otherwise musicologists, other composers, conductors etc. will dismiss you.


----------



## SuperTonic

Why the need for the vitriol? There is no need to be so angry just because you only enjoy listening to Classical era music and others don't. Just listen to the music you want to listen to and write the music you want to write. The determination of what is beautiful is subjective, not absolute. I find beauty in modernist/atonal music as well as music from earlier eras, and many others do as well.
I may have listened to your piece and given constructive criticism, but after reading your reactionary rant I really had no desire to even listen to it.


----------



## juergen

PetrB said:


> You are laboring under a grievous misconception that both Mozart and Beethoven were 'popular' and 'populist' composers. In their own time, they were consumed and loved by a tiny minority.


You are right, they were consumed only by a tiny minority. But the reason is, that only a tiny minority had the chance to visit a concert hall. Anyway, that's not the point. I was talking about the situation TODAY, not about the past. And it's simply a fact, that the old masters fill the concert halls and opera houses, while concerts with works of contemporary composers are exotic side events. I have absolutely no idea why composers call their music "contemporary" if it does not have a contemporary audience.


----------



## Pizzicato

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> You sound like a conservative audience. Composing in the style of the old dead guys from 200+ years ago is only good for the composer in the early learning stages of composition. Imitation is the way I believe everyone should learn. But when one starts to master the style of the old dead guys I believe it is time for them to move away from that and learn about what is happening in the Here and Now, rather than what happened in the Europe 200+ years ago. I think you compose well and I think you are ready to explore and learn about the world of composition today and become part of today's musical society rather than 200+ years ago's society. If you want to be recognised today you must be original in your thought otherwise musicologists, other composers, conductors etc. will dismiss you.


You seem to care about being recognized and popularity more than actually enjoying the composing process. So what if he doesn't compose modern classical music. He probably wouldn't enjoy composing as much if he didn't compose in the style of the old masters. Plus not everyone is crazy about modern classical music (highly evident) and I'm sure people would enjoy his music if it was premiered. After all music does not have to be original to be enjoyed by a lot of people and become popular. Look at the amount of pop/rap music out there (which sucks I know.)

P.S. Old dead guys. That's a bit disrespectful isn't it?


----------



## Ramako

Pizzicato said:


> You seem to care about being recognized and popularity more than actually enjoying the composing process. So what if he doesn't compose modern classical music. He probably wouldn't enjoy composing as much if he didn't compose in the style of the old masters. Plus not everyone is crazy about modern classical music (highly evident) and I'm sure people would enjoy his music if it was premiered. After all music does not have to be original to be enjoyed by a lot of people and become popular. Look at the amount of pop/rap music out there (which sucks I know.)
> 
> P.S. Old dead guys. That's a bit disrespectful isn't it?


While I agree with what you say, I do think that what he says is prevailing attitude in musical circles, certainly academic ones. If you do not write modern classical then you will be looked down on. Still, it seems to me that one should be ready to be dismissed by the present society, perhaps particularly the academic one, and adhere to one's artistic principles. The future will discriminate.


----------



## Krisena

It's not about composing modern classical, it's about being original and not doing what someone else did before you. If you can't be original, you're just a plagiating parasite, leeching off others' inventions. It's totally okay to borrow, but if you're not going to do something new with it, why bother doing it at all?


----------



## Ramako

Krisena said:


> It's not about composing modern classical


I have been assured that many composers "start off" composing in a tonal way and then "move on" to write modern classical, which is a touch condescending.



Krisena said:


> it's about being original and not doing what someone else did before you.


!!! Why is "it" about being original? What is originality? Originality flatters the vanity of the artist and listeners, and "moves on" art, because today's society is so scientifically oriented that art has followed in its wake, enslaving itself. This has become one of the top priorities of modern composition, from through the 19th century, but not before. It seems to me that the concentration ought to be on writing something good, not something original. Originality soon dies out, and becomes old-fashioned, quality endures.



Krisena said:


> It's totally okay to borrow, but if you're not going to do something new with it, why bother doing it at all?


Here I agree. It is only the emphasis on originality I disagree with, not the overall principle you put forward, although I wonder what "something new" is? I sort of believe that if something is good it will automatically become original, because the artistic spirit imbued into it will be different from before, our time is different from before. Our taste is different. I like originality, but I don't know if it is a necessary condition for quality.

On a side note, my browser claims the user has removed the video, which is a little annoying. I do however guess the style from the other thread on the quartet.


----------



## Krisena

Hey, I just replied to the "If you do not write modern classical then you will be looked down on" statement, which is not true! (I don't think it was yours either, but anyways). My point was that it's not your style that decides if you're accepted by academia or not, it's your skill to make that style work in an original manner. If you're not original, you will be accused of plagiarism and redundancy. I mean, why _bother_ writing another conventional classical sonata piece? There are thousands of them! If it's just for personal reasons, then sure, but don't expect to be taken seriously as a composer. If you feel you have some fresh ideas to add to the genre however, then compose away!


----------



## juergen

Krisena said:


> There are thousands of them!


And what do you think why are there thousands? Why did the composers continue to compose pieces in that style when there already existed hundreds of them? Did it make more sense 200 years ago than today?

As long as there are people out there who like that kind of music and who want to hear new pieces in that style one has every right to compose them. You don't think that those people exist? Be sure that they do exist and they are probably more than those who like to hear that what you call "modern classical".


----------



## Ramako

I am sorry for the tone of my post - looking back it is too hostile to a reasonable point you are making, however I will keep to my points.



Krisena said:


> Hey, I just replied to the "If you do not write modern classical then you will be looked down on" statement, which is not true! (I don't think it was yours either, but anyways). My point was that it's not your style that decides if you're accepted by academia or not, it's your skill to make that style work in an original manner.


Very much so. Although I would say in my opinion that originality has less to do with the techniques used than how you use them. I don't know academia well enough yet, so I can't go on further.



Krisena said:


> If you're not original, you will be accused of plagiarism and redundancy.


Very true, although one should bear in mind this is a sin of which the likes of Handel and Mendelssohn are accused of.



Krisena said:


> I mean, why _bother_ writing another conventional classical sonata piece? There are thousands of them! If it's just for personal reasons, then sure, but don't expect to be taken seriously as a composer. If you feel you have some fresh ideas to add to the genre however, then compose away!


Composing in sonata form is an easy way to write something entertaining when asked for. However, I have not yet done this beyond my family circle, and the pieces I write for others are often more experimental in form than those I write for myself. However, my practice is beside the point.

Why be original? Why even want to "add something new to the genre"? It seems to me that if you want to write something good then the language, the restrictions of form and pastiche may well restrict you, particularly as our culture is now 250 years removed from the birth of sonata form.

I read a very nice book called _The Composer and his Art_ by Gordon Jacob (I believe) in which the author says something to the effect of: The only reason to search for new forms is because we cannot beat the masters in the ones in which they wrote. That is not exactly my point but relevant.

If one is focussing on writing something good, one can (maybe should) forget about all conventions, and focus on the internal art of the music. Sonata form and the likes are a mere framework upon which we can rest in our weakness, or so it seems to me. Thus originality follows quality - it does not make a piece worthwhile in and of itself, or so I believe.

To finish with a quote from my old favourite: "The free arts and the beautiful science of composition will not tolerate technical chains. The mind and soul must be free." Joseph Haydn

Edit: Actually my signature should reveal I don't think originality actually useless.


----------



## StevenOBrien

Trying to be original is so unoriginal!


----------



## Ramako

StevenOBrien said:


> Trying to be original is so unoriginal!


Certainly! Also, in general it seems no more original to me to try and write in the style of Boulez than Haydn.


----------



## Krisena

Ramako, all your points are valid, and as _my_ signature reveals, I'm not against writing conventional pieces.  _However,_ I addressed the "accepted by academia" problem, where writing conventional pieces is not enough to get by.

Edit: About the quote you posted "The free arts and the beautiful science of composition will not tolerate technical chains. The mind and soul must be free", I think this is the _premise_ of making fresh music!


----------

