# Originality and Authenticity in Contemporary Music and the Future



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

Something that has been bugging me for a long time is how composers and musicians approach the problem of being original. How does said artist find his voice that makes them stand out and be unique and be recognized as a authentic, original composer?

I know what most of you are probably thinking, there is no 'how to' on this matter, it comes with education, experience, passion, and desire to go beyond what is now.

But how does this translate in our contemporary world? How does a composer in our times try and surpass boundaries, after John Cage and his 4:33? How does a composer rewrite harmony after Schoenberg and Atonality/Serialism? Mathematics of music? I-Ching music? Chance music?

My question is not the "how" of being original and unique and finding "your voice". my question is, when does a composer come to the understanding that what he/she writes is satisfactory for his/her needs? When does the artist settle down and be comfortable with what he/she writes? What is the purpose of the artist and his existence in our times? Can an audience appreciate work in an older style?

There are many people posting all kinds of music in the composers forum, ranging from all eras of classical music. And I notice comments time and again about a piece being "out-dated", "obsolete", "irrelevant", "uninspired". Does this mean that the ultimate goal for all composers now a days is to write avant garde music? But think about how much we have explored avant garde with stockhausen, cage, and other contemporaries. How can we claim any new music from the 21st century to be original work? What has been done that hasnt already been done in the past in regards to modern and avant garde music?

If the style has been said and done, does that make the music itself now obsolete?

Is the chapter on tonality officially closed? Are we no longer trying to write music in a style that once was?

I for one am not a big fan of avant garde music, but I respect the questions posed and the barriers broken. The philosophical redefining of what is considered music is genuine art in my opinion. But does this mean, as a composer not striving to go to such extreme lengths, no longer compose anymore? Am I just feeding off the masters of the past? Does my existence as an artist no longer matter?

It is something Ive been frustrated with, particularly now and my stagnant musical ideas. The burning desire to be authentic. How does one write chamber music without it sounding like brahms?

the Masters of the past have influenced artists of today heavily - I do not deny that. Influence is a guide to finding ones voice. We grow our trees from the seeds of the old. I just feel agitated that what I am trying to create is already a mirror of what someone else wrote.

[end of messy rant]

So, what is the future of art? and do you feel that contemporary music written in an older style has no value?

And as listeners of classical music, should we no longer accept new music written in older forms?

And what is your definition of an artists existence? How do you define an artist that was, expressed what was needed of him, and should be remembered and valued as an artist? How do you define a contemporary artist that is original?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

A hefty question. I think to be a truly successful composer these days, one needs to look at everything music history has given to us and find ways to combine some or all of those different styles in order to obtain a unique voice. 

It does kind of annoy me when people write completely in an old style, It's just not relevant to our time anymore. And I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but styles in music are always arrived at, not decided upon. They are a product of their time, a product of history just as much as artistic vision. To go back and compose in a completely old style just robs the style of its context in my opinion. 

Now, I think writing in something like a neo-romantic/neo-tonal style is just fine and many composers like Penderecki and Gorecki have been able to pull that off quite well because they don't sound completely like some composer 100s of years old. But I hear so many compositions these days, mostly from student composers, that sound exactly like Chopin or Schumann, and I just think why? I could just be listening to Chopin or Schumann.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Write what you feel like writing. As violadude said, style is not decided upon. That includes styles which seem to be hundreds of years old. No one can truly write like anyone else, because they don't have the same experiences. So don't worry about it.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

violadude said:


> A hefty question. I think to be a truly successful composer these days, one needs to look at everything music history has given to us and find ways to combine some or all of those different styles in order to obtain a unique voice.
> 
> It does kind of annoy me when people write completely in an old style, It's just not relevant to our time anymore. And I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but styles in music are always arrived at, not decided upon. They are a product of their time, a product of history just as much as artistic vision. To go back and compose in a completely old style just robs the style of its context in my opinion.
> 
> Now, I think writing in something like a neo-romantic/neo-tonal style is just fine and many composers like Penderecki and Gorecki have been able to pull that off quite well because they don't sound completely like some composer 100s of years old. But I hear so many compositions these days, mostly from student composers, that sound exactly like Chopin or Schumann, and I just think why? I could just be listening to Chopin or Schumann.


I share my sentiments with you when it comes to over imitating a composer, and its something that I myself try to avoid. But it happens that upon writing something, I get Mahlers piano quartet stuck in my head, and before I know it, it turns out similar in texture and feel as that quartet.

But, think about this then, if returning to older forms puts it out of context, doesnt this mean that eventually we will run out of ways and methods of composing? Does that mean that art actually has a lifeline? that its not infinite, and eventually in our history, art will be complete?

Which makes me wonder, maybe we are witnessing art's last breath? Perhaps the artist will cease to exist in the future? I mean why bother when an entire library of hundreds of thousands of pieces of music have been written covering every single form of expression man has need to experience? I guess you could considerate a good thing that much Roman and Greek music has been lost, as who knows where we would be now in terms of music evolution? Maybe Beethoven would end up copying from some obscure Greek composer, and would never have accomplished anything?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Igneous01 said:


> I share my sentiments with you when it comes to over imitating a composer, and its something that I myself try to avoid. But it happens that upon writing something, I get Mahlers piano quartet stuck in my head, and before I know it, it turns out similar in texture and feel as that quartet.
> 
> But, think about this then, if returning to older forms puts it out of context, doesnt this mean that eventually we will run out of ways and methods of composing? Does that mean that art actually has a lifeline? that its not infinite, and eventually in our history, art will be complete?
> 
> Which makes me wonder, maybe we are witnessing art's last breath? Perhaps the artist will cease to exist in the future? I mean why bother when an entire library of hundreds of thousands of pieces of music have been written covering every single form of expression man has need to experience? I guess you could considerate a good thing that much Roman and Greek music has been lost, as who knows where we would be now in terms of music evolution? Maybe Beethoven would end up copying from some obscure Greek composer, and would never have accomplished anything?


eh...I don't think that art we cease to exist. Maybe we just cant see what's next in the future of music. Remember, even Schubert was despairing over how composers were going to come up with something new after hearing Beethoven's 14th string quartet, and look how much music has been written since then.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

true, Schubert thought it was the end after hearing Beethovens 14th, even though it was really the beginning of a whole new story of music.

But what comes after 4,33? If silence can be considered music, perhaps it is the last line of music? Where can you go after silence?

Perhaps im just thinking about this too much, but even taking painting for example, how many painters today still paint in an impressionistic way? I would assume that those who still enjoy the style still do it. I would not be surprised if an empty canvas was also presented as an artists expression. Not that im insulting an empty canvas, it asks a great philisophical question. But what do you paint after nothing?


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Igneous01 said:


> But what comes after 4,33? If silence can be considered music, perhaps it is the last line of music? Where can you go after silence?


Well, you can fart, which might be closer to music than silence. At least it's a sound.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Igneous01 said:


> true, Schubert thought it was the end after hearing Beethovens 14th, even though it was really the beginning of a whole new story of music.
> 
> But what comes after 4,33? If silence can be considered music, perhaps it is the last line of music? Where can you go after silence?
> 
> Perhaps im just thinking about this too much, but even taking painting for example, how many painters today still paint in an impressionistic way? I would assume that those who still enjoy the style still do it. I would not be surprised if an empty canvas was also presented as an artists expression. Not that im insulting an empty canvas, it asks a great philisophical question. But what do you paint after nothing?


All I can say is that art and music have always and will always change as is necessary with the time. What that change would be I don't know yet, but people will never lose their impulse to create.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Pertinent and very good questions, with no pragmatic solutions. That's because me think the future of "fine music" composition is probably a dismal one given the sort of stuff around today. You guys are in a tough business, and I certainly don't envy you. You're up against several hundred years of stuff.

As for originality, that word has really lost its great meaning these days when it comes to music. Sure there are lots of good stuff but still far more weird ones that while might be considered original, are really just insult to the senses, even though some might find it enjoyable (good for you, if you do).

This leaves us with the past. Past meaning everything written before today the 29th October 2011. There's nothing wrong with the great past. Discover the past. Celebrate the past and find new meaning in the past. Or else you're stuck with stuff like this:-


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Igneous01 said:


> Perhaps im just thinking about this too much, but even taking painting for example, how many painters today still paint in an impressionistic way? I would assume that those who still enjoy the style still do it.


Exactly why I don't see anything wrong with composing in a style that sounds older.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The author, John Barth quoted another writer mourning over the perceived "death of art". The writer moans that alas! he was born to late. All the great poems have been written. All the great narratives have been explored and explored again until their is nothing left. The future, as he sees it, shall be little more than a giant rehashing of the past. The author in question...? An Egyptian living some several hundred years BCE!

J.L. Borges explored the concept of the exhaustion of art in one of his essays. He brings up the writer who theorized that at some point every possible combination of words and letters would be achieved and nothing new could be written. Another philosopher suggested that the same would eventually befall music... every possible combination of notes would eventually be attained and we would be facing the end of music. 

Borges dismisses the ideas as absurd for the simple reason that they are based in a false pretense... the notion that art is simply a game involving the organization of words or colors or sounds... a game that will eventually be exhausted. Borges notes that art is a relationship... literature (his art) can never be exhausted for the same reason that no great work of literature can ever be exhausted. The Shakespeare of the time of Shakespeare was not the Shakespeare known to the Romantics nor the Shakespeare known to the Modernists. The same is true of music. Bach of 150 years ago is not the same Bach of 50 years ago, which is again different from the Bach known to us. 

Originality in art is something far more profound than mere novelty. 4:33 is novelty: no one has ever written a work of music with no notes before. Andy Warhol making paintings with urine is mere novelty. Claude Monet painting the grand waterlilies in the 1920s... 50 years after Impressionism... years after fauvism, Cubism, and Futurism was still original. Giorgio Morandi painting simple, earth-toned still life paintings rooted in Cezanne and Italian Quattrocento paintings in the 1950s... at the height of the bold American Abstract Expressionists, was also original. True originality comes not from mere novelty, but from developing one's own unique artistic language rooted in one's greatest passions. It is something that develops or evolves over time much like one's own signature.

Certainly... look, listen, read all that is being created around you... and then follow your own passions... wherever they lead. Realize that great art is just as likely to be born built upon the achievements of those immediately prior to you as it is to be born of a complete rejection of the same. William Blake suggested, "If the fool would persist in its folly he would become wise." When it comes to art, I quite agree. A good deal of that which we acknowledge as the greatest art was not born of logical, rational, good sense and good taste. J.S. Bach achieved more working in what was already being dismissed as an archaic and provincial manner and style of music than any of the composers of the same period who were being touted as the latest thing.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

@StlukesguildOhio

That is a beautiful response to this conundrum, those words bring about a cooling sensation to me. In a way it has given me the ability to define art for what it really is, in a way I had never fully explored before. Thank you for sharing this


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Igneous01 said:


> @StlukesguildOhio
> 
> That is a beautiful response to this conundrum, those words bring about a cooling sensation to me. In a way it has given me the ability to define art for what it really is, in a way I had never fully explored before. Thank you for sharing this


I agree. Truly an excellent post, and a great summation of the importance of art.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Igneous01 said:


> I would not be surprised if an empty canvas was also presented as an artists expression. Not that im insulting an empty canvas, it asks a great philisophical question. But what do you paint after nothing?


I think it was about 1915 when Malevich exhibited his 'black square'. So I suppose 'all paintings created after 1915' is the answer to your question.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> T
> Claude Monet painting the grand waterlilies in the 1920s... 50 years after Impressionism... years after fauvism, Cubism, and Futurism was still original. Giorgio Morandi painting simple, earth-toned still life paintings rooted in Cezanne and Italian Quattrocento paintings in the 1950s... at the height of the bold American Abstract Expressionists, was also original.


Could you give some examples of this happening in music. I don't know much about art, so it would help me understand what you are saying better.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I'm going to be general here. Uniqueness should be an expectation, not a virtue. When you consciously go for "something new" oftentimes you're just inverting a common value system and the result feels reactionary and without its own, I suppose, internal ethics. As much as I respect the avant-garde there is no "future of art" and there never was, it's all just art.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Don't worry Johnny, those scary people writing scary music aren't real musicians at all, but fake evil musicians, but soon the good musicians will come back and give us beautiful holy music again that isn't tainted by concepts like what the true nature of sound is. We don't need no stinkin sound for sounds sake! We need sound that reminds us of flowers and bunnies and angels. Yay 



Edit: That's not directed at you RT, though it may look like it since it's right below your response. It is merely directed at the general feeling Im starting to get from this thread.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Right. For the record, I see the works of some of the more demonized guys here like late Schoenberg, Cage, etc. as more continuations of the past than some sort of attempt to "disconnect" from tradition.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

_Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio- Claude Monet painting the grand waterlilies in the 1920s... 50 years after Impressionism... years after fauvism, Cubism, and Futurism was still original. Giorgio Morandi painting simple, earth-toned still life paintings rooted in Cezanne and Italian Quattrocento paintings in the 1950s... at the height of the bold American Abstract Expressionists, was also original._

Could you give some examples of this happening in music. I don't know much about art, so it would help me understand what you are saying better.

Bach is an obvious example. By Bach's late decades the Baroque was coming to an end. His own sons, C.P.E. Bach and Johann Christian were already considered to be far more relevant than "old man Bach." They were already pointing the way toward classicism... and yet Bach was continuing on with his explorations in an already "archaic" style... much as Monet and Degas and Bonnard continued to explore the possibilities of Impressionism decades after that movement had be surpassed by later more "advanced" movements in painting.

One might see something of the rejection of the latest "advanced" ideas in art in Schumann and to a degree Chopin. While the virtuosity of Liszt... built upon Beethoven was the rage, Schumann and Chopin looked back to the simplicity of Mozart.

Richard Strauss is another obvious example. Strauss himself lead the movement toward "Expressionism" with his early tone poems and his operas _Salome_ and _Elektra_. Where Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, and Kurt Weill took these innovations even further, Strauss later pulls back. His Rosenkavalier might almost be deemed Neo-Classical... with elements of Mozart and Romanticism... while his _Four Last Songs_ (1948) is a culmination of Romanticism... well after Romanticism had ceased to be seen by many as relevant.

One might even suggest that many artistic innovations begin in a rejection of the latest advanced theories in a given art form. if we look at the mid-20th century we have the heated debate between those who held on to Romanticism (Barber, Copland, Virgil Thomson, Alan Hovhaness, etc... and those who argued that Romanticism and traditional tonality was dead (Boulez, Charles Wuorinen, Morten Feldman, etc...). To many composers the entire debate was a non-issue as they began to build upon traditions that were neither rooted in serialism or Romanticism. Here you might think of composers as far apart stylistically as Harry Partch, Leonard Bernstein, Phillip Glass, Arvo Part, etc...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

violadude said:


> I think to be a truly successful composer these days, one needs to look at everything music history has given to us and find ways to combine some or all of those different styles in order to obtain a unique voice.


This is the key! It's called imagination. Those who don't possess this talent should spare the listeners by choosing another occupation.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> This is the key! It's called imagination. Those who don't possess this talent should spare the listeners by choosing another occupation.


Thank goodness, at least someone agrees with me.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Igneous01 said:


> Something that has been bugging me for a long time is how composers and musicians approach the problem of being original. How does said artist find his voice that makes them stand out and be unique and be recognized as a authentic, original composer?


My mother has always said that great art is not necessarily about technical knowledge - which is in most cases a givens - but it is about daring, it is about being bold and striking out & doing interesting things, creative things, sometimes challenging before their time, but not always. It's about a mix of things. It's about expressing uniqueness, which doesn't necessarily have to be "big" or "profound" statements.



> I know what most of you are probably thinking, there is no 'how to' on this matter, it comes with education, experience, passion, and desire to go beyond what is now.


I agree with this, every composer will have different solutions to the different problems or questions they are posing. This engagement with their craft/art as well as the world at large is the real "stuff" or crux of what they do.



> But how does this translate in our contemporary world? How does a composer in our times try and surpass boundaries, after John Cage and his 4:33? How does a composer rewrite harmony after Schoenberg and Atonality/Serialism? Mathematics of music? I-Ching music? Chance music?


Yes, John Cage was a big figure, so was Schoenberg. Or J.S. Bach for that matter, and many others. But all this heritage it's just a smorgasbord. Composers know all the techniques, but they choose which areas they want to develop in. Sometimes the big names mean little to great composers. Harry Partch virtually rejected everything between J.S. Bach and Schoenberg. Ravel thought Beethoven's music was "abonimable." As others have pointed out, J.S. Bach was seen as of little interest, old hat, to the general public for a long time after his death, during that time he was mainly a "composer's composer." So nothing is sacred, it's just that composers have to have a wide knowledge, they can hone in on what they want from that wide base.



> My question is not the "how" of being original and unique and finding "your voice". my question is, when does a composer come to the understanding that what he/she writes is satisfactory for his/her needs? When does the artist settle down and be comfortable with what he/she writes? What is the purpose of the artist and his existence in our times? Can an audience appreciate work in an older style?


That's many questions there but I think basically it's based on the needs of the work at hand, the composer's vision, what they want to express, things of that sort. They bend and shape things to their needs. Eg. Schoenberg combined Baroque forms like canons and fugues with Surrealist poetry and vocal techniques of cabaret/music hall in _Pierrot Lunaire_. It's one of the most innovative works of it's time, yet some critics of the post-1945 "hard" serialist dogmatic stance saw this as kind of too neo-classical and old hat almost. Even the most ground-breaking things can sometimes be seen as almost conservative with hindsight.



> There are many people posting all kinds of music in the composers forum, ranging from all eras of classical music. And I notice comments time and again about a piece being *"out-dated", "obsolete", "irrelevant", "uninspired". *Does this mean that the ultimate goal for all composers now a days is to write avant garde music?


I think those are quite lazy terms. I may have even used some in the past myself, but now I realise they're basically bullsh*t. They mean nothing, or it's more like "music I don't like." As for the second part, no nobody has to write music of any style today or anytime in history, there are no sacred cows be they Stockhausen or Bach, it's open slather now, you can be inspired by anything you like, give voice to your inner vision, whether it's West African drumming or Bachian fugues or the ideas of John Cage (or even all of them put together :lol: ). Anything goes basically, it's all about pluralism now, less about dogma (& amen to that!)...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Sid James said:


> My mother has always said that great art is not necessarily about technical knowledge - which is in most cases a givens - but it is about daring, it is about being bold and striking out & doing interesting things, creative things, sometimes challenging before their time, but not always. It's about a mix of things. It's about expressing uniqueness, which doesn't necessarily have to be "big" or "profound" statements.


The only thing I'd like to add to that is that good art takes _perception_ a step further (and as you rightly say, the step may be a large one or a small one). The artist perceives something new that he believes to be valuable, and through the art we can come to perceive it too. But this isn't about being merely fanciful, and trying to dream up something new, _just because_ it's new. As Ruskin said (speaking metaphorically): if you actually see angels then you should paint them; if you don't _see_ them, it's no use trying to make them up.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> We need sound that reminds us of flowers and bunnies and angels


Speak for yourself, I don't need anything to remind me of things that I have in my mind all the time.


----------



## Praeludium (Oct 9, 2011)

I like the association of music and history (some people talked about that in this thread).

I remember seeing a video of Demidenko playing Bach's WTC book II (on a Fazioli ^^) on YouTube, in which at the beginning of it, he was saying that one shouldn't try to "recreate" the music exactly as it was played in a given period, because our complex world was so diffferent than our contemporary world that it'd be a bit pointless (I'm not quoting here, just saying what I understood).
This also make the "neo" thing absolutely useless. I was thinking about it lately. Wasn't Classical music as we understand it (ie. music of the end of the XVIIth century) already neo-classical ? The "Ars Perfecta" seems pretty "classical" to me.
And ancient Greek art (litterature and philosopgy at least) is called Classical isn't it ? What does this mean ?


Anyway, what do we mean by "originality" ? Is it just a matter of musical language ? of concept ? both of them ?

For me, originality in it's common sense has definitely to be seen as a relative thing. If this is a very complex subject today, couldn't it be because of the abundance of different languages and approaches to Art ?
We have to build quite restrictive frames if we want to think about this today.
If you throw some atonal polyrythmic stuff in rock music, then it'll be original in this context.
But let's suppose that we think about originality only in the frame of contemporary music. I don't think the things have gotten simplier.
So in order to give a correct definition in originality I think we might have to "create" extremely restrictive frames.
The problem being that with such restrictive frames relativity lost its value - a work original among 20.000 other works and a work original among 100 other works aren't the same thing. At all.

To pu it in a nutshell, I just think that since we live in an extremely complex, very divided and contrasted world - including in Art - originality is just a dead concept. It's no more relevant.


So IMO, if we can't find marks to go with - or against - in our external artistic world we have to get marks somewhere else.
Trying to find his own marks is quite difficult (I say this as a second-rate music student who seeking his marks).


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Sid James said:


> My mother has always said that great art is not necessarily about technical knowledge - which is in most cases a givens - but it is about daring, it is about being bold and striking out & doing interesting things, creative things, sometimes challenging before their time, but not always. It's about a mix of things. It's about expressing uniqueness, which doesn't necessarily have to be "big" or "profound" statements.


Einstein said the same thing before your mother. "Imagination is more important than knowledge." I'm not in the music field, but I wonder how much pressure there is on composers to conform to the compositional trends being pushed by the academics? Frank Zappa talked about this in a very interesting Q & A session in 1984. You can listen to the whole thing on YouTube (Palace of Fine Arts Lecture). Being a maverick comes with a heavy price. As Zappa stated, guys like him who don't kiss up to academia, don't get the grants and prize money. Of course his predecessors Varese and Bartok suffered the same fate. Charles Ives didn't care because he made a good living as an insurance sales consultant.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

Just thought I would reply again, some very interesting comments and insights to this 'philisophical' question of art. 

The most scariest thing for me now is the possibility, that I just might come to hate art

Im in a bit of crisis, in one perspective is the romantic view of art, of self expression and a proof of ones existence, even if what they contributed isn't exactly revolutionary or evolutionary. Then there's the biological view of art as I would like to call it, that only the strongest survive, by adapting to an unexpected threat, or in this case, change in peoples ideals and definitions of what constitutes music as art. Those who 'fail' to adapt to this sudden change are left behind and buried in the sands of time. But there is also the moderate approach to both of these - that music (art) is self expression and self adapting at the same time. 

I think im spending too much time deciding on which tree to follow, instead of just writing, because I love to do it. But, we cant all be so easy to accept the simple route of human pleasure? Certainly not me, in fact, I probably wont continue writing until I finally decide for myself which definition of art I should stand by


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Igneous01 said:


> I probably wont continue writing until I finally decide for myself which definition of art I should stand by


Obviously we're all different, but I doubt very much if many of the great writers (or artists or composers) troubled themselves about that. They just wrote, or painted, or composed. Not because of some philosophical notion of the significance of what they were doing, but because they had something to say, and couldn't feel easy with themselves until they'd said it. Making art can be an agonising process, fraught with problems, barriers, depressions, anxieties - but it's better out than in, as they say. At least, in my experience, it is. And once it's out, it's up to posterity to decide whether it's worth preserving or not.

I imagine two polarised possible futures for my writing. In one, it languishes in journals and books on dusty library shelves, completely ignored. In the other, someone comes along, picks one up almost by accident, blows off the dust, starts to read ... and _carries on reading._ I don't know which one will be accurate, so I write anyway. Of course if I were a Boswell, knowing I were writing to great purpose, and deliberately writing for posterity, things would be different. But there aren't many Boswells around, so we just have to take our chance.

I suppose what I'm saying (speaking purely for myself) is that I'm the only person who can decide, in the first instance, whether something is worth writing. If I think it is, then I should write it. If philosophy were getting in the way and obstructing that process, then I'd say to heck with it.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Originality and Authenticity in Contemporary Music is a very rare thing.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

I kind of wish I had that attitude right now 
Maybe you should post things you have written here for some feedback? I wouldn't mind taking a detour from my practices and get a different view on things in a different medium. Im sure you would agree as well


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

starthrower said:


> Einstein said the same thing before your mother. "Imagination is more important than knowledge." I'm not in the music field, but I wonder how much pressure there is on composers to conform to the compositional trends being pushed by the academics? ...


There is probably still pressure for sure, there are cliques in the art world, it's kind of human nature to do that. But from what I can gather, from my reading about & talking to musicians, there's less of the dogma & ideology around now than there was in the immediate post-1945 decades. Even back then, some composers totally or virtually rejected the serialist straitjacket and continued on composing as they did, and produced some great music, a lot of which is innovative in other ways. I'm talking of people like Xenakis, Partch, Tippett, Dutilleux, Carter, & there were many others. The last two were definitely touched by serialism, learnt it's lessons, but never applied them rigidly in their music, they did it their own way, flexibly. Now we have many composers doing a lot of different things. Pluralism seems to be the norm, not any overriding dogma. I can hear this in the music of contemporary Australian composers I hear live here fairly regularly, there's such a stylistic diversity here, and I don't doubt that the situation is the same across the world.

& thanks for mentioning the Zappa lecture, I will get to it when I have time, sounds fascinating...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Igneous01 said:


> I kind of wish I had that attitude right now


Not sure if you were replying to me, here. But if you were, I'd say that the attitude isn't something _that happens to me_; there's no point in my just waiting for inspiration to strike (it probably won't), or wishing for the right attitude (nothing will change); rather, it's the result of an active decision I take, to force the issue. An approaching publication deadline, for instance, is a wonderful focuser of the mind! I've known myself sit here typing, _forcing_ myself to persevere, to get the words down, _any_ words (because they can be changed later if they're rubbish). And on nearly every occasion, after a while the ice begins to thaw, the words come more easily, the piece slowly develops, and one day ... there it is!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Igneous01 said:


> I kind of wish I had that attitude right now
> Maybe you should post things you have written here for some feedback? I wouldn't mind taking a detour from my practices and get a different view on things in a different medium. Im sure you would agree as well


I really don't understand why you would start disliking all music or art because you don't like the trends going on in music these days. Or because you don't think there is any originality left?


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

@violadude
Im a complicated person, i know its a trivial thing to bother with, but I cant help it. 

Its not so much a not liking the trends, but not understanding them. I feel like the odd one out, and that bothers me, Ok i admit im a little obsessive about such things. Im sure theres some originality in it, im just not understanding it, which bothers me.

I hope that clears up your confusion about me


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Igneous01 said:


> @violadude
> Im a complicated person, i know its a trivial thing to bother with, but I cant help it.
> 
> Its not so much a not liking the trends, but not understanding them. I feel like the odd one out, and that bothers me, Ok i admit im a little obsessive about such things. Im sure theres some originality in it, im just not understanding it, which bothers me.
> ...


 "
Do you like to read? If so read Alex Ross' book "And the rest is noise." It chronicles the "how" and "why" and "what for" and "when" of every 20th century music trend you can think of, and it does so in an easy to understand and even entertaining way. It will help you gain a better understanding of this stuff.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Im a complicated person


He is complicated man 
but noone understands him 
but his woman... Igneous01


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

Aramis said:


> He is complicated man
> but noone understands him
> but his woman... Igneous01


not sure if im women, or If I have a women, the answers are both a polite "no"

I think were both complicated, too complicated to be discussing such a complicated topic.

@Violadude
I shall have a look for that book, thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Igneous01 said:


> I feel like the odd one out, and that bothers me


I suppose that's probably something that often goes with the job. I think many creative people feel like outsiders, square pegs in round holes. They don't _see_ things in the same way as most of the people they know; but that's not surprising, because it's the 'not seeing things the same way' that fuels their creativity. The writing, the painting, or the composing provides a way of channeling that energy outwards, into something positive and constructive, rather than inwards, negatively.

I'm not saying that creativity is some form of therapy (though I don't see why it can't include a therapeutic element); but if we have a natural creative impulse, it makes sense to see where it can take us, and we might become unhappy if (for whatever reason) we don't.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

One way to look at this issue is just that it is actually impossible for humans to be completely original, because that would imply making something from nothing, and as imaginative as we are, we can't do that.










Take this Pikachu for example, it is a man-made creature. There is nothing in nature that looks exactly like that. Now everything that it has combined shows us something that we have never seen before, but look at what it is made of, bunny ears, a mouse nose, clown cheeks, a lightning bolt for a tail. It is made entirely of things we have already seen before, so therefore it is not truly original. Our brains can take what we know and recombine them in different ways, but it can't truly create out of nothing. The same applies for music.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

violadude said:


> One way to look at this issue is just that it is actually impossible for humans to be completely original, because that would imply making something from nothing, and as imaginative as we are, we can't do that.
> 
> http://mydisguises.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Pikachu.gif
> 
> Take this Pikachu for example, it is a man-made creature. There is nothing in nature that looks exactly like that. Now everything that it has combined shows us something that we have never seen before, but look at what it is made of, bunny ears, a mouse nose, clown cheeks, a lightning bolt for a tail. It is made entirely of things we have already seen before, so therefore it is not truly original. Our brains can take what we know and recombine them in different ways, but it can't truly create out of nothing. The same applies for music.


In other words: if you can imagine it, it already exists.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Kopachris said:


> In other words: if you can imagine it, it already exists.


Ya basically. I mean, the whole might be new, but the parts used to create the whole are not.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Sid James said:


> & thanks for mentioning the Zappa lecture, I will get to it when I have time, sounds fascinating...


It's more of a Q & A session before a live audience than a lecture, but FZ was always very sharp and articulate. A pleasure to listen to. He was really a serious composer masquerading as a rock star. It provided the income to finance his orchestral projects, and having a band since the mid 60s allowed him to hear his compositions before he could afford to organize large scale orchestral performances/recordings.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I think the whole text is one hot mess, that's what I think. 

I really do not believe, other than for a few Very Eager and rather shallow or reactionary composers (lets just use 'artists') that artists set out to calculatedly figure out how to make their work, to put it in a manner in which it appears you perceive it -- "novel." 

What happens, as does with any developing writer, 'artist,' etc. is that after some initial training and practice, it is to be hoped there comes a time when the artist arrives at what all better instructors had always been urging those developing artists and performing artists to do, i.e. 'Find their own voice.' 

That voice is as 'unique' as any person's natural speaking voice; it has fingerprints and personality. The balance of the outcome rests in what is said with that voice.

Depending entirely upon the artist's interests and inclinations, that voice and what can be said with it manifests in many different ways, some in what could be called 'conservative,' (perhaps subtle), while others will have found their natural curiosity pursuing the 'making of something very other,' and using the same basic materials but from a very different determined set of intentions, they develop in another direction completely, .

These are sincere directions for those who take them, a natural outcome of having more practice, experience, clarity of thought, as well as more at hand fluency to make the medium do what they wish it to do. Being 'conservative' or anyplace in between is arrived at in exactly the same manner, a series of progressive steps leading to a more fluent and natural voice. (I keep going back to thinking you made out the search for 'modernity' or 'uniqueness' as if it were a quest of shopping for a set of affectations one might adopt -- quaint, that 

There is, in a current climate of the most exaggerated form of Publicity Hype and serious Bull **** (do wish the site would allow that eloquent and very legitimate set of words or the phrase to remain non-censured) those who will be more ambitious to be recognized for bupkis rather than be gradually found out for work of merit; for them, tgat shallow publicity-sensationalist route will be calculatedly trod. Once that path is pursued, those on it may sometimes get things done, public presentations, etc. Being the flavor of the month and the trick of the week I believe may take more physical and psychic effort than being a more sincere artist, but some will so apply themselves and may even make and keep a very superficial longer-term career. These are, in my uber-maximum elitist snob opinion, "the Vulgarians," who will find and mate up with their vulgarian audience counterparts, who are those more interested in following the arts to be perceived as hipsters 'in the know' but have no concern or concept of 'to discern.'

This too, has been going on for millenia and what is left, apart from that crowd, are those other artists, radical innovators or otherwise, whose works are sincere, in their own voice, and not cheaply sensational.

I don't see what the worry is, let alone perceive a real question here. 

Form? Form fits the idea which suits it, and the idea which suits may dictate finding a less standard form. Again, unless you are one of the public on the outside of all this looking in (fair enough), if you do not have a developed sense to discern what is of interest and value to you, but instead rely upon historic standards of older repertoire and form while not making the least effort to expand those concepts / guides -- as artists past and present artists have continually done -- well, that is not really the fault or concern of artists, is it?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

@PetrB: I think we've found a part of music/artistic philosophy we agree on, although I'm sure we'll disagree on some of the finer points.

Oh, wait! I found something in that post I can disagree with, but it'd just make me look like a grammar Nazi.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kopachris said:


> @PetrB: I think we've found a part of music/artistic philosophy we agree on, although I'm sure we'll disagree on some of the finer points.
> 
> Oh, wait! I found something in that post I can disagree with, but it'd just make me look like a grammar Nazi.


There's more than a little grammar to clean up there, but I almost insist on 'Grammar Fascist' as being more accurate, correct


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kopachris said:


> In other words: if you can imagine it, it already exists.


I've phrased it, and this includes the most innovative of ideas or works, as 
*'regenerating fresh cliches.'*


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> Don't worry Johnny, those scary people writing scary music aren't real musicians at all, but fake evil musicians, but soon the good musicians will come back and give us beautiful holy music again that isn't tainted by concepts like what the true nature of sound is. We don't need no stinkin sound for sounds sake! We need sound that reminds us of flowers and bunnies and angels. Yay


*You forgot to mention it has to "tell a story." :-/*


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Praeludium said:


> I like the association of music and history (some people talked about that in this thread).
> 
> I remember seeing a video of Demidenko playing Bach's WTC book II (on a Fazioli ^^) on YouTube, in which at the beginning of it, he was saying that one shouldn't try to "recreate" the music exactly as it was played in a given period, because our complex world was so diffferent than our contemporary world that it'd be a bit pointless (I'm not quoting here, just saying what I understood).
> This also make the "neo" thing absolutely useless. I was thinking about it lately. Wasn't Classical music as we understand it (ie. music of the end of the XVIIth century) already neo-classical ? The "Ars Perfecta" seems pretty "classical" to me.
> ...


Originality is simply something newly said, and / or said in a refreshing new context: How it is said is just a matter of style. I think we've all been taught and agree that style is very important, and if done well an integral quality of what is said, but too, that style without really saying something, i.e. by itself, is to such a degree secondary that it 'is nothing.'


----------

