# Tonal music in our days



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

What if I compose something very innovative and never done before by any of the greatest composers using the "dear old" tonal system?

Will people don't care about it only because it's not atonal or what?

Can you give me a quick overview of the current state of tonal system in classic music?

Can you also show me some examples of classic contemporary tonal music?

I'd like to learn.

Thanks!


----------



## dstring (May 14, 2013)

Why would you compare yourself with the greatest composers? Include all the not so famous ones and it's suddenly not so easy to create something that has never been done before by just using the dear old tonal system.

I'm not stating it's impossible to compose something totally new with the tonal system but I'm reaaaally sceptical it wouldn't sound naive and/or uninteresting.

There's plenty of composers abusing the system but they still don't try to create fugue again as it was in 1700's. As a part of the composition it could suddenly bring your piece of music to new life, though. Or you may bend or stretch the system.

-dstring

Disclaimer: This is a naive reply.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2014)

You won't even have to be innovative. Tons of new "tonal" music gets attention to this day.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Look at what Maxwell Davies has done - An Orkney Wedding at Sunrise tonal and it's got a bagpipe solo 






Another is Matthew McConnell who has written a concerto for toy piano 






Tonality is only one way of writing modern music. Sometimes people get a bit jokey, sometimes they can be quite serious e.g.

Adams' The Dharma at Big Sur which is tonal but not equal temperament and uses samples and electric fiddle:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Howard Blake from the auld country is best known for "Walking in the Air." His piano quartet is a killer, but not on YT. Here's his string trio:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Nothing is "tonal" anymore, and if you composed in that way, you couldn't be taken seriously, though much of the music composed today is "tonal" and gets plenty of attention.

The confusion comes from tonal being used in two separate senses:
Tonal: the harmonic system relying on a hierarchical relationship between the notes of the diatonic scale and the functional relationships between them, created in the 17th century and continuing on through the early 20th century.

Tonal: harmony that uses a diatonic or modal rather than chromatic basis and generally privileges triads and their derivatives over other chord types.

Music of the second type has been composed consistently, and it doesn't earn you any scorn to compose this way. Music of the first type is an archaic method. You could say something new, of course, but you would be putting on a fake accent.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Tonality is alive and well and living in the Glass mansion.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

For something incredibly beautiful and accessible...






For something a bit more challenging and large-scale, people in the current listening thread (including me) have been exploring Penderecki, where the second half of his works are neo-romantic, that is, tonal and extroverted and lush in emotion but not in the common-practice harmonic style. That is, there is a heavy use of triads but not functional harmony (Mahlerian just explained this very well.)


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I am all for change, music needs to evolve. So let some of the music of today be as innovative and novelty as it can be. But next to that, why shouldn't there be a part of music being composed today that is similar in style to the baroque, classical, romantic etc. eras? I don't see what's wrong with that. If I think it's good music, it's relevant. Who cares what others consider relevant?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

kikko said:


> Will people don't care about it only because it's not atonal or what?


I'd say it would depend on who you mean by "people"

If you mean music critics (who, I guess are, arguably "people")...probably not...

If you mean people on the site, I'd guess 50% wouldn't care, another 40% would be afraid to say they care, and maybe 10% might care.

If you mean people who program music concerts in traditional symphony music auditoriums.......it's doubtful.

If you mean the general public, who can say? Eric Whitacre seems to do pretty well.....

I'd say, do what inspires you and take your chances.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

DeepR said:


> I am all for change, music needs to evolve. So let some of the music of today be as innovative and novelty as it can be. But next to that, why shouldn't there be a part of music being composed today that is similar in style to the baroque, classical, romantic etc. eras? I don't see what's wrong with that. If I think it's good music, it's relevant. Who cares what others consider relevant?


Because... the point of music composition is to express your personal voice (I'm pretty sure Mahler, Stravinsky, and lots of other giants have said something similar) and it would be ineffective to do this with common practice functional harmony. It's not a matter of relevance, novelty, or evolution (which don't matter as much) as personal expression, especially personal expression of your attitude towards the current world and culture. I repeat, the point of abandoning common practice functional harmony isn't for innovation, but because writing that way wouldn't effectively communicate your personal voice.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SeptimalTritone said:


> I repeat, the point of abandoning common practice functional harmony isn't for innovation, but because writing that way wouldn't effectively communicate your personal voice.


Hmmm... My impression is that there is far more CPT music written today, concerts staged, CDs sold, etc., than otherwise. Also that the composers of this music, for the most part, want to express their "personal voice".

Or are you speaking only of communicating to high-class connoisseurs, such as are found in abundance here?


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Nothing is "tonal" anymore, and if you composed in that way, you couldn't be taken seriously, though much of the music composed today is "tonal" and gets plenty of attention.
> 
> The confusion comes from tonal being used in two separate senses:
> Tonal: the harmonic system relying on a hierarchical relationship between the notes of the diatonic scale and the functional relationships between them, created in the 17th century and continuing on through the early 20th century.
> ...


My friend, I don't think that some people here in TC are really using "tonal" in a technical way. Or are interested in the real technical meaning of "tonality".

By "tonal" they mean the music of the 19th century, and the first decades of the 20th, with a pint of Mozart and Bach, that is the only music they like, or they understand, or both.

In this context, "tonal" is for them the "right" way to write music, the 'natural' way to write music, instead of just a system, a convention used in the West for a few centuries. The fact that, literally, millions of musical pieces in the history of Mankind are not related to "tonality" won't make any difference. "Tonal" is a kind of totem.

Personally, I'm absolutely fine with that. What it's more difficult for me to understand is why there is such a passion in TC for deriding any music that some people don't like, don't understand, or both.

After thinking about it, it seems to me that some people think that there is a kind of conspiracy in the classical music world. As, for some unknown cause, composers are no longer able to write good, "tonal" music anymore, they have decided to hide this fact, and present their obvious incompetence as the only way forward, the era of "atonal" music, and have recruited some snobs (that secretly detest the "atonal" music, but will never confess to it) to cooperate with them.

Then again, if you are actually promoting "atonal" music, this is because either you:

1.- Are part of the conspiracy
2.- You are not part of the conspiracy, but belong to the group of hopeless snobs.
3.- You are just a simpleton, unable to recognize "good", "tonal" music for what it is, and "atonal" music for... well, for just crap.

It's really puzzling, but this is how I see the situation in TC with all these endless debates about "tonality".


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Hmmm... My impression is that there is far more CPT music written today, concerts staged, CDs sold, etc., than otherwise. Also that the composers of this music, for the most part, want to express their "personal voice".
> 
> Or are you speaking only of communicating to high-class connoisseurs, such as are found in abundance here?


Oh really? Where? Who is writing using CPT these days?


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Hmmm... My impression is that there is far more CPT music written today, concerts staged, CDs sold, etc., than otherwise. Also that the composers of this music, for the most part, want to express their "personal voice".
> 
> Or are you speaking only of communicating to high-class connoisseurs, such as are found in abundance here?


Well, if you are referring to pop music with repeated I-IV-V-I progressions, there are only so many "I have a crush on a guy/girl" songs one can write. Yes, a lot of people like them and I don't, but that's not due to _elitism_ but due to... me being a more attentive listener! I know you're joking Ken, but to make this point: pop music is barely an expression of personal voice, and the people who like modern classical music do so because they are attentive and discerning, not elitist!

And as for schigolch, why so much hate towards atonal music? Listen to some Dallapicola. And there is great tonal stuff too: listen to the examples some of us have posted here.

Edit: sorry schigolch I didn't realize the sarcasm upon first reading.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Well "modern" or "contemporary" doesn't automatically translate to "atonal".

Plenty of 20th century music is tonal, think: Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Bartok, Persichetti, Mennin, Schuman, Ives, etc;

Tonality plus dissonance does not equal atonality.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Oh really? Where? Who is writing using CPT these days?


Well, I'd immediately name people like Howard Blake, Lauridsen, and (sometimes) Maxwell Davies -- if not CPT, then close to it and certainly very tonal. (Easy to name because examples have already been given.)

But the big gorilla is of course the 97% of the music world that we think, somehow, isn't "serious" music because we don't call it "classical." I suspect that most of the music that survives from our era will come from there, not here.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

I'm pretty sure the Lauridsen example I just posted is not CPT... it's very triadic, but I hear no typical functional progressions. I could be wrong, though.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

You want some very nice tonal 20th century music, try Persichetti's piano sonatas #'s 2-10, Ives' Concord Piano Sonata, Bartok's second violin concerto, Prokofiev's 2nd violin concerto and 3rd piano concerto, Schuman's symphonies #'s 3, 6, 8 and 10, and Mennin's symphony #7.

I don't know about "your days", but this modern tonal music sure belongs to "my days."

For something written recently (2002), try Seppo Pohjola's first symphony-accessible, tonal with dissonance.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SeptimalTritone said:


> I'm pretty sure the Lauridsen example I just posted is not CPT... it's very triadic, but I hear no typical functional progressions. I could be wrong, though.


I'm not sure either, but it's certainly tonal. My definition: If it sounds tonal in Macon, it's tonal! Beautiful piece BTW.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Well, I'd immediately name people like Howard Blake, Lauridsen, and (sometimes) Maxwell Davies -- if not CPT, then close to it and certainly very tonal. (Easy to name because examples have already been given.)


That's the thing though. It's not CPT. It may be "tonal" by one definition, but not by the strict definition.

I really don't understand why the split should be between music which is chromatic and music which is diatonic rather than music which is functional and music which is non-functional. That's how we distinguish between the modal music of the Renaissance and the tonal music of the Baroque.

To me it's all music.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Check out the following threads.*

Check out the following threads:

http://www.talkclassical.com/33271-who-your-favorite-living.html. Many of the composers here most would consider tonal within the context of the OP.

http://www.talkclassical.com/32482-recommend-me-some-late.html. Like the above, many of the composers here most would consider tonal within the context of the OP.

http://www.talkclassical.com/33151-new-symphony-american-composer.html.  New symphony by an up and coming American composer. In spite of the dissonances, it is basically a tonal work.

http://www.talkclassical.com/32689-what-top-5-21st.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/31834-composers-born-1960s-1970s.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/18533-post-ww2-composers-who.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/26178-great-new-modern-operatic.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/27797-greatest-living-composer.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/32980-what-most-recent-opera.html

There are many others.

One also can find some great suggestions in the "Latest Purchases" and "Current Listening" Threads.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

NO hpowders! What happened to more handsome, full color, Leonard Bernstein?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SeptimalTritone said:


> NO hpowders! What happened to more handsome, full color, Leonard Bernstein?


Joltin' Joe has left and gone away...


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Because... the point of music composition is to express your personal voice (I'm pretty sure Mahler, Stravinsky, and lots of other giants have said something similar) and it would be ineffective to do this with common practice functional harmony. It's not a matter of relevance, novelty, or evolution (which don't matter as much) as personal expression, especially personal expression of your attitude towards the current world and culture. I repeat, the point of abandoning common practice functional harmony isn't for innovation, but because writing that way wouldn't effectively communicate your personal voice.


The composers of the olden days still effectively communicate their personal voice to me and many others, which makes the music timeless and not just a product of its time. You see, I get what you're saying but I just don't like the mentality behind it. 
If a composer today would choose to apply older composing methods then that is his choice. We don't decide for a composer how to communicate. As long as there is an audience for it, there can be communication. The music critics and academic circles may not like it, but that's another thing. A newer approach doesn't have to be exclusive and rule out an older one. It's not science. The way I see it, there are no closed chapters in art. This may be far from reality but it's more about the principle.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

DeepR said:


> If a composer today would choose to apply older composing methods then that is his choice. We don't decide for a composer how to communicate.


That is true! Very true! But... I doubt he or she would be able to do much with these older composing methods. And why should they restrict themselves?

What makes, say, Bach's Art of Fugue amazing is that he puts his very soul into it. Today's composers wouldn't be able to put their soul into a Bach style work, not because they are incompetent or soulless, but because there are much more important modern feelings that dominate their psyche.

Indeed, listen to Messiaen, Takemitsu, Penderecki, Haas, etc. To an extent, they are _superior_ to Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven because they communicate a modern version of spirituality. And when I say modern, I don't mean new for the sake of new, but new for the sake of celebrating the best of our current world! They certainly could have used CPT, but that wouldn't make them even 1% as effective.

Abandoning CPT is not for the sake of some elitist academic workers or whatever you want to call them, but because there are much better methods for expressing amazing artistic things!


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Let's put it this way... would you recommend a modern author to write in the style of Charles Dickens? Definitely not. And although Charles Dickens is amazing and timeless (just like Beethoven) it would be pointless for a modern author to write in his style. Yes, there are no closed chapters in art, but personal expression comes first, and personal expression usually requires the methods and techniques of the present time (which are both tonal, atonal, microtonal, and more!).


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

[EDIT: I see that SeptimalTriTone posted a somewhat similar line of thought above just as I was posting mine].

These "tonality" discussions are always a little bewildering for me. I don't want composers to write in the style of the 18th-century or 19th-century any more than I want to wear 18th-century clothes or live in a 19th-century house. I love the music of the 18th and 19th centuries just as I love the poetry and fiction of the 18th and 19th centuries. Yes, there are certain features of 18th and 19th century poetry and fiction that transcend the limits of their era. But they are also knee-deep in their milieu, not only in terms of setting, but style, language, worldview, etc. And so too is the music. In some ways, it transcends; in some ways, it's stuck in another time. I have lived a good chunk of my life in the 20th century and am now in the thick of the 21st. I want artists to speak to me in my native tongue -- to speak to me in contemporary musical parlance. My world is full of sounds that didn't exist in the 18th and 19th century, and I presume that artists hear those same sounds and those sounds are part of their palette.

For those who are uncomfortable with contemporary musics, my first question is: What specific examples are you thinking of that make you uncomfortable that you yearn for "tonality"? Are you aware of the wide ranging works and composing styles that may be less discomfitting? (Arpeggio posted an excellent set of links above to threads where a good and wide-ranging set of examples are cited and discussed). Other questions follow: Why do you yearn for music of another era? If artists actually composed faux-Haydn string quartets, would that satisfy you? If artists composed faux-Beethoven symphonies or faux-Wagner operas, would that satisfy you? What are you asking for from your artists?

In fact, contemporary artists, on occasion, deliberately compose in or draw upon earlier styles. Two examples. The first is a rather avant-garde-ish composer, Charles Wuorinen, who playfully took some Renaissance dance music pieces and cleverly re-orchestrated them for contemporary performance. Here's the YouTube:






One could call those "Etudes" in the sense that they are studies in instrumental coloring, that Wuorinen cleverly took advantage of the fact that Renaissance composers might have allowed a variety of instruments to play a certain line (giving him the opening to use 20th-century instruments like a clarinet) and that Renaissance performers might well have improvised using a variety of techniques to punctuate the melody (giving him the opening to use 20th-century techniques like glissandi and flutter-tonguing). What are we to do with such deliberate archaicisms? Is that what we want fulltime? And what about the artist's intentionality? Are not such works more examples of humor and playfulness?

Another more serious example: Dobrenka Tabakova is a young contemporary Romanian-born British composer who has composed a work called "Suite in the Old Style". She deliberately plays on certain late Renaissance / early Baroque styles in this piece, but she is also consciously writing a serious contemporary work. But then, this is just one work in her repertoire. I doubt she wants this to define her oeuvre. This is simply her loving nod to music of the past. But I suspect that she thinks of this as expressive only a tiny part of her soul. She has other things to say.






Let me use literary examples: If I write a novel in the style of Dostoyevsky -- and I mean, really in his style, using his mannerisms, his sentence structures, his character developments, his plot twists -- what would I be doing artistically? Mocking him? Being ironic? Of course, one can still write a good 20th-century novel and be epic. Witness Gabriel Garcia Marquez' _One Hundred Years of Solitude_. But Marquez told the story as he did, in a rather dizzying late 20th-century way, with its folkloric "magical realism." And he told the story of anguish and joy of a family in a century of violent Latin American politics. I am happy he wrote a 20th-century novel and not a faux-19th century one. He carved out a voice that fit his story and our world. Its "magical realism" might discomfit those who want a 19th-century novel of manners. And it may be hard the first time through to figure "what really happened". But Marquez was speaking powerfully enough, uniquely enough, that he was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature and became one of the towering figures of 20th-century literature. Should I have insisted that he write like Jane Austen or Cervantes?

I think of T.S. Eliot's classic essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent." How much of the "tradition" must our "individual talents" embrace for us to listen to them and be grateful for what they say? I don't think this is about "tonality". I think it's about how much we are willing to let our artists speak to us in beautiful -- and beautifully discomforting -- ways.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Are you related to Ukko?

We should be told.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The layman's read of this would have the 'dear old' tonal system meaning the new work would sound like the 'dear old' works... it would not, if "tonal" is meant as "sound like the old stuff."

Too, _Tonal_ is thought about very differently now, a shift of 'how to look at it' since Debussy, and over as many years from 1890 until now.

To many, 'atonal' triggers an idea of 'the sound of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern,' or that school of mid 20th century serialist composers.

Now, both 'tonal and atonal' are at work, _very much at the composer's disposal to work in any of a number of ways,_ a newer work with that m.o. probably sounding not tonal or atonal to anyone currently, but 'just new.'
Thomas Ades, among many other composers, said he doesn't even think in terms in tonal or atonal.
Here, his recent _In Seven Days,_ a concertante work for orchestra and piano...




(very nice fugue segments in this piece.)

John Adams' music is 'resolutely tonal,' but even his early _Common tones in simple time_ starts and ends in a different key, with no thought of 'going back home,' that no longer a rule or really upsetting to today's audiences.





_If_ one were to compose a good piece more directly in the older syntax of common practice harmony, and with stylistic traits of a particular era or composer, this could be well-received -- _but the composer would invariably have in the title one of the standard phrases which tips the hat as to the nature of that piece,_ i.e. _À la manière de_ composer X or '_in the olden style_ (plenty of those.)

But the two pieces I gave links to above _are_ current tonal music... so your question had me needing to assume that you meant music much more directly "in the olden style(s)." For that, without any criticism at all, you can find boodles of it in film music, generic late romantic, etc. To me (unable to ignore a lifetime's training and listening) that all sounds like pastiche. If you meant a piece sounding -- extended -- more like that, the 'dear old tonal piece' might get as much and like a reception to a decent new play written in the Shakespearean style.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DeepR said:


> The composers of the olden days still effectively communicate their personal voice to me and many others, which makes the music timeless and not just a product of its time.


It is no one's fault, not even your own, really, if you make a readier connection -- via the art of music, anyway -- to sentiments from another age, as much as those sentiments (via their 'sound world') do still convey the sentiments to our modern selves. _Those sentiments also spoke to the contemporaries for whom it was contemporary music -- exactly as some contemporary music speaks to its contemporary audiences._

It is certainly no one's fault if they feel and express their sentiments from their own time in a mode which seems appropriate to them for that time.

"The test of time" is what has sorted out for us the bland, the less interesting, the less universal music of the past.

In our own era, there is no such test, and we are on our own in sorting out the plethora of contemporary works which 'speak to us.' Some are willing to venture a guess on 'what will speak also to future generations,' but that is a speculation game at best, and for the average music listener of today, I would think of no concern at all.

There are some -- sorry, but I think it more than true -- who only prefer art from previous eras, and I am one to think if you are not also actively looking and listening at the arts of your own time and are only a fan of older art, then you are not so much an art lover but a lover of old art as a form of escape and avoidance of contemporary life. Many use art in this way, to 'go back in time' and forget about all of our contemporary concerns. While that should not be directly criticized (use and consume art any way you see fit, after all), those who are 'the escapists' have pretty much abandoned any right to criticize or vote upon matters of contemporary art.

Calling not liking the works of the current time anything but 'not to your taste,' gets into a pitfall of ignorance of the dynamics of art, artists, and what and when that art was or why it is made, why that is "the way it was." It is an exact like explanation answering the question on the contemporary art of our times, "why that is the way it is," which also well enough answers, "why they don't write, paint, or make music like they used to." :lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I really don't understand why the split should be between music which is chromatic and music which is diatonic rather than music which is functional and music which is non-functional. That's how we distinguish between the modal music of the Renaissance and the tonal music of the Baroque.


LOL. My composition teacher's definition of "Tonal = if a piece works."


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Interesting thought: one of the basic reservoirs of common practice tonality and even modal music is traditional church music and some hymn writing.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SeptimalTritone said:


> I'm pretty sure the Lauridsen example I just posted is not CPT... it's very triadic, but I hear no typical functional progressions. I could be wrong, though.


and then.... I find this variety of 'contemporary' music extremely insipid, so find it hard to believe this is what people who say they yearn for 'tonal music' mean. I'm convinced they're more wishing music historic time stopped ca. 1890, and that none of the later developments ever happened


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Taggart said:


> Interesting thought: one of the basic reservoirs of common practice tonality and even modal music is traditional church music and some hymn writing.


I'd give that no serious weight at all -- rather a chicken or egg kind of situation. Lay tunes -- fitting the same templates -- were spontaneously hatching all over the place in the same eras, music not being some 'exclusive' of the church. "The church," then as now, is anything _but_ an innovator when it comes to the arts, but of the eras mentioned, church music more likely worked with things first invented and generated 'by the lay people.'


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Let's put it this way... would you recommend a modern author to write in the style of Charles Dickens? Definitely not. And although Charles Dickens is amazing and timeless (just like Beethoven) it would be pointless for a modern author to write in his style. Yes, there are no closed chapters in art, but personal expression comes first, and personal expression usually requires the methods and techniques of the present time (which are both tonal, atonal, microtonal, and more!).


Actually, I would. It doesn't help that I'm a Dickens fan, but I honestly think it's a shame that people don't write in that way any more. I feel the same way about music - I don't think that composing in a particular style diminishes the quality of a work, or inhibits a composer from expressing themselves.

I recently saw an organist perform one of his original compositions. In it there was a fugal section that sounded distinctively Baroque - if anything, I feel that it was the best part of his composition. He certainly seemed satisfied with it as well! I have no problem with innovation, but I don't think that new directions in music should automatically preclude the previous styles of music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Stargazer said:


> Actually, I would. It doesn't help that I'm a Dickens fan, but I honestly think it's a shame that people don't write in that way any more. I feel the same way about music - I don't think that composing in a particular style diminishes the quality of a work, or inhibits a composer from expressing themselves.
> 
> I recently saw an organist perform one of his original compositions. In it there was a fugal section that sounded distinctively Baroque - if anything, I feel that it was the best part of his composition. He certainly seemed satisfied with it as well! I have no problem with innovation, but I don't think that new directions in music should automatically preclude the previous styles of music.


As if there weren't enough really fine, top of the line baroque style fugal works already in existence...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Taken to an extreme, when art of a particular culture is more inclined toward imitating past models, and its artists start pirating the cultural cache of the past vs. making anything fresher and more innovative -- and the audience happily consume that, or even demand it, those are always signs of that culture's ultimate demise... the culture, its people, become effete in the old sense of the word, i.e. thin, worn out; that is a kind of rot or decadence, the organism no longer vital or renewing itself.

People advocating just that, 'make / write more like they did in the past,' are a manifestation of such a state in the time-line of a culture. Ergo, those advocates as a manifestation at that particular juncture of a culture's decay are very much a part of the problem.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Stargazer said:


> Actually, I would. It doesn't help that I'm a Dickens fan, but I honestly think it's a shame that people don't write in that way any more. I feel the same way about music - I don't think that composing in a particular style diminishes the quality of a work, or inhibits a composer from expressing themselves.


The parallel here, though, would be to intentionally restrain yourself from any words or topics which would not have come up in Dickens's time. When, as would happen, some usage or syntax ends up diverging from that era's norms, it would end up marking the whole as of its own time, and thus make the whole feel quite artificial.



Stargazer said:


> I recently saw an organist perform one of his original compositions. In it there was a fugal section that sounded distinctively Baroque - if anything, I feel that it was the best part of his composition. He certainly seemed satisfied with it as well! I have no problem with innovation, but I don't think that new directions in music should automatically preclude the previous styles of music.


To go back to common practice tonality is to ignore everything that's happened since to build upon it. There are plenty of fugues in modernist music, but they don't fully adhere to CPT norms.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Stargazer, you'll have to read what we said a bit more carefully. Let me ask you this: what's the point of classical music, for you personally? If the answer is expression, then you have no choice but to investigate everything from Gregorian chant to Renaissance to common practice to 20th/21st century and find out which works speak the most to you. But if the answer is pleasantness, then, perhaps the 20th/21st century has no value then. See Peter's comments about escapism vs artistic speaking.

I have no doubt that the organist you saw wrote an enjoyable and well-constructed Baroque-style fugue, but now you must ask: is this fugue "good" from the pleasantness standpoint, or an expression standpoint?


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

kikko said:


> Can you also show me some examples of classic contemporary tonal music?
> 
> I'd like to learn.
> 
> Thanks!


Here is a brand spanking new concert piece by John Williams and yes it is tonal.






Well, mostly!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Alfacharger said:


> Here is a brand spanking new concert piece by John Williams and yes it is tonal.


Written at 82 years old. John Williams gets big points for that! Maybe a small deduction as well since it's Lang Lang playing.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Stargazer said:


> Actually, I would. It doesn't help that I'm a Dickens fan, but I honestly think it's a shame that people don't write in that way any more. I feel the same way about music - I don't think that composing in a particular style diminishes the quality of a work, or inhibits a composer from expressing themselves.
> 
> I recently saw an organist perform one of his original compositions. In it there was a fugal section that sounded distinctively Baroque - if anything, I feel that it was the best part of his composition. He certainly seemed satisfied with it as well! I have no problem with innovation, but I don't think that new directions in music should automatically preclude the previous styles of music.


What are we talking about here? A single work? Or the entire body of an artist's oeuvre? A non-controversial example: Haydn deeply appreciated Bach and his writing of fugues, and so in a number of his string quartets Haydn included certain movements in a fugal style. It was a self-conscious nod, a deliberate "old style," an acknowledgement and sign of artistic respect. Of course, Haydn put his own touch on it. But that was hardly all he was doing. Mozart, in turn, composed his "Haydn Quartets," again, a gesture of respect and, as he discovered, a challenging artistic task. All sorts of composers might, within a single work, look back to a past idiom, draw on it, play with it, give it a good innovative twist, do something to make it their own. But if their entire oeuvre is defined by it, well, that may be a sign of artistic limitation. Let me use one contemporary example: Nikolai Kapustin. He, a Russian, draws on American jazz from the early to mid-20th century as a repertoire for his compositions. His works sound like old-fashioned jazz to my ear trained to listen to jazz of the last 50 years. Kapustin's work is full of echoes of Duke Ellington, Oscar Peterson, Count Basie, even older styles, like that of Scott Joplin. Is it creative? Sure. It has a certain originality. His works are certainly fun, even exhilarating. But, from what I gather, that old-fashioned jazz idiom(s) define(s) his style. He doesn't compose, as far as I know, in any other style.

Creativity, it seems to me, doesn't preclude drawing on past styles, mining them, exploring, re-inventing them. But if that comes to define one's oeuvre, then that implies, I believe, something of an artistic limitation. It's back to the T.S. Eliot essay, "Tradition and the Individual Talent." How much do you insist on tradition? How much on talent? It's never either / or. It's what you do with the tradition you inherit with your individual talent.

I didn't invent the English language. I was born into it and slowly grew up to speak as a native speaker. I can use it well or badly, creatively or pedantically. It's up to me. If I'm linguistically skilled, I might want to imitate Shakespeare and write a few Shakespearean-style sonnets, or more subtly hint at such a past by echoing and recasting a past style or genre. That's part of my toolbox as an artist. But does it define my artistry? Speaking solely in a past style is always going to sound self-conscious, sound like an affected idiom, because of the historical distance (and experiential disjunction).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I wouldn't mind a bit if a modern composer wanted to write in the style of Beethoven. I'd happily buy and enjoy his stuff, listen to it at concerts, etc. Of course, he'd have to write as well as Beethoven, and even Beethoven wasn't as good as Beethoven all the time.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> To go back to common practice tonality is to ignore everything that's happened since to build upon it.


I agree, although I think that would only apply unless one thought that anything other than common practice tonality was a wrong path. I think one can (and in some cases must) go back a couple of steps because one is headed for the wrong direction. I don't think this applies to art, but since it does apply to other evolutionary processes (politics, science, etc.) one might be tempted to transfer it to art as well.

Since anyone is free to compose in whichever style they wish, no harm done. Regardless of what one might think of the exploits of Jenkins and Einaudi, or those of Pärt and Glass, for that matter.

The argument that if one composes in an old-fashioned style, one does not contribute to the evolution of music, is valid, but not in a moral way. To say, as Boulez did, that anyone not composing in the twelve-tone system is of no use, is not only dogmatic but also unusually out of taste, particularly for a French composer.

The advantage of literature is that the importance of the content far outweighs the importance of the style. In other words, the main question is: what do I write about, rather than how do I write. (This is not to diminish the importance of style, just to put in in perspective.) In music, on the other hand, it seems to be rather the other way round. Unless one is writing operas, or songs, where concrete subject matter trumps the concers of style.

This is where I feel music written in a traditional style has the most potential: in taking up rather concretely certain topics and issues and setting them to music. That way, the music has a greater chance of avoiding the assessment that it is just a pointless excercise.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2014)

Stargazer said:


> I don't think that composing in a particular style diminishes the quality of a work, or inhibits a composer from expressing themselves.


"In a particular style" means that a thing is known. It has been around long enough to be "a style." Did Dickens write in the style of Dickens? No. He wrote. And once he had written, then readers could see stylistic similarities from novel to novel. Those things can be imitated, but that is not how Dickens wrote. That is something that gets left out of the equation over and over again. Beethoven imitated Haydn and Mozart, at first, but then he went on to write Beethoven music. Because he was Beethoven. Before him, no one wrote quite like that. After him, it was now possible to write like that, because Beethoven had already done it. But he didn't write Beethoven pieces by imitating Beethoven, by copying Beethoven's "style." He wrote Beethoven by being Beethoven. Really. It's the only way to do it.

Really, this desire for people to write today like composers wrote in the past is a logical glitch. Composers today do already write like composers in the past. The original ones, anyway. Lauridsen and Einaudi and Higdon and the like do not write like composers in the past. If Tchaikovsky, for instance, had written like Higdon, then all his pieces would have sounded like warmed-over Glinka. They don't. Because Tchaikovsky wrote new music. It's not new any more, of course, and it now sounds pleasant, to our ears. But that's hardly Tchaikovsky's fault, is it? We natter on about communication, about what speaks to us, forgetting that the music of the past that sounds so pleasant and so peaceful and so familiar and so right to us, now, did not sound that way to its first auditors, any more than the music of the present (as opposed to simply the music in the present) does to its first auditors.



Stargazer said:


> I don't think that new directions in music should automatically preclude the previous styles of music.


A contradiction. I know, it's been used so often that it is no longer felt as a contradiction. Regardless.



Andreas said:


> Since anyone is free to compose in whichever style they wish, no harm done.


Except of course the harm to oneself, maybe. One's own voice is one's own. It's not a style. Not at first, anyway. Once you have spoken, other people can look at what you've said and recognize stylistic features, which can, in turn, be imitated. But if your voice is original, if your voice is unique, if your voice is sui generis, then you are not speaking in "a style" or even in "styles." You're just speaking. Only later does style enter into it. (Hmmm. Where have I heard that before?)



Andreas said:


> To say, as Boulez did, that anyone not composing in the twelve-tone system is of no use, is not only dogmatic but also unusually out of taste, particularly for a French composer.


Well, since Boulez did not in fact say this, I suppose that lets him off the dogmatic/taste hook, eh?



Andreas said:


> The advantage of literature is that the importance of the content far outweighs the importance of the style. In other words, the main question is: what do I write about, rather than how do I write.


Um. No. Style and content cannot be so easily separated. And this is all backwards, anyway. The what is largely determined by the how. But that is perhaps for a different thread (on a different board).


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

some guy said:


> "In a particular style" means that a thing is known. It has been around long enough to be "a style." Did Dickens write in the style of Dickens? No. He wrote. And once he had written, then readers could see stylistic similarities from novel to novel. Those things can be imitated, but that is not how Dickens wrote. That is something that gets left out of the equation over and over again. Beethoven imitated Haydn and Mozart, at first, but then he went on to write Beethoven music. Because he was Beethoven. Before him, no one wrote quite like that. After him, it was now possible to write like that, because Beethoven had already done it. But he didn't write Beethoven pieces by imitating Beethoven, by copying Beethoven's "style." He wrote Beethoven by being Beethoven. Really. It's the only way to do it.
> 
> Really, this desire for people to write today like composers wrote in the past is a logical glitch. Composers today do already write like composers in the past. The original ones, anyway. Lauridsen and Einaudi and Higdon and the like do not write like composers in the past. If Tchaikovsky, for instance, had written like Higdon, then all his pieces would have sounded like warmed-over Glinka. They don't. Because Tchaikovsky wrote new music. It's not new any more, of course, and it now sounds pleasant, to our ears. But that's hardly Tchaikovsky's fault, is it? We natter on about communication, about what speaks to us, forgetting that the music of the past that sounds so pleasant and so peaceful and so familiar and so right to us, now, did not sound that way to its first auditors, any more than the music of the present (as opposed to simply the music in the present) does to its first auditors.


I think that there's a kind of misunderstanding here and it's about proportions.

You talked about Tchaikovsky. His music is totally different from the one composed by Pergolesi who lived more than 100 years (from Tchaikovsky).

He innovated but he continued to use the tonal system.

And now that we are 100 years away from Tchaikovsky there is a total different proportion in term of innovations.

If Tchaikovsky is 10 steps farther from Pergolesi then we are miles farther from Tchaikovsky.

Here I'm not asking "will I receive attentions if I compose like classic composers" but "will I receive attentions if I compose using the tonal system".

Why can't we innovate using the tonal system?

Maybe because music can run out?


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2014)

Everyone has been telling you for the past 4 pages - *tonal music is still widely composed.*


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

One of the most respected composers of recent years wrote music founded on his own modern system of tonality. Messiaen.

His writings on the subject of his musical style are very detailed, to an almost academic standard. Like one of his predecessors, Bartok, his music is both tonal and forward-thinking.

I think the problem, if you choose to view it as such, is that people have been trying for years to write music in (for example) Bach or Mozart's respective systems of tonality, but none of them have rivalled the masters, simply because such music has been done before and done better.


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Everyone has been telling you for the past 4 pages - *tonal music is still widely composed.*


Calm down. I was only clarifing the question for "some guy".

I've actually read at all the answers.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

some guy said:


> "In a particular style" means that a thing is known. It has been around long enough to be "a style." Did Dickens write in the style of Dickens? No. He wrote. And once he had written, then readers could see stylistic similarities from novel to novel. Those things can be imitated, but that is not how Dickens wrote. That is something that gets left out of the equation over and over again. Beethoven imitated Haydn and Mozart, at first, but then he went on to write Beethoven music. Because he was Beethoven. Before him, no one wrote quite like that. After him, it was now possible to write like that, because Beethoven had already done it. But he didn't write Beethoven pieces by imitating Beethoven, by copying Beethoven's "style." He wrote Beethoven by being Beethoven. Really. It's the only way to do it.
> 
> Really, this desire for people to write today like composers wrote in the past is a logical glitch. Composers today do already write like composers in the past. The original ones, anyway. Lauridsen and Einaudi and Higdon and the like do not write like composers in the past. If Tchaikovsky, for instance, had written like Higdon, then all his pieces would have sounded like warmed-over Glinka. They don't. Because Tchaikovsky wrote new music. It's not new any more, of course, and it now sounds pleasant, to our ears. But that's hardly Tchaikovsky's fault, is it? We natter on about communication, about what speaks to us, forgetting that the music of the past that sounds so pleasant and so peaceful and so familiar and so right to us, now, did not sound that way to its first auditors, any more than the music of the present (as opposed to simply the music in the present) does to its first auditors.
> 
> ...


I want to frame this post and put it on my wall!


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

kikko said:


> Why can't we innovate using the tonal system?
> 
> Maybe because music can run out?


In fact, people have been innovating the tonal system in many different ways for over a century. Technically speaking, Schoenberg's "atonal" phase and his later serialist phase was, in fact, a search for innovating the tonal system. It may be an innovation that you don't care for, but objectively speaking, that was the _result_ of what he was doing. (I say "result" because his concern was not theory _per se_, but composing the best music he knew, finding a voice that expressed his deepest concerns).

Let me cite a composer whose music you might hear as "tonal": *Arvo Pärt.* His music is, in fact, a self-conscious effort to innovate the tonal system. And his music, I believe and many others believe, is quite beautiful -- and transparent on first hearing. Pärt, a contemporary Estonian composer, got his start composing in the style of serialism. He found that, for himself, after some years, it was proving to be a stylistic deadend. He entered into a period of creative silence. He immersed himself in studying the music of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. He had, during this same period, a profound religious conversion, and when he began composing again he composed with a new voice and new style. You will likely hear it as "tonal." Technically speaking it is not. It is an innovation. It alternates consonance and dissonance on successive beats. The end-result is that it will likely sound very consonant to your ears. Since Pärt stepped back to medieval and Renaissance musics, he stepped back into an era when "major" and "minor" were simply two of the 8 modes. Generally speaking then, his music is not "tonal" but modal. And while he abandoned the pitch patterns of 1960s serialism, his training in serialism led him to bring the same kind of disciplined use of pitches to his new music. If I can put it this way, he is a "modal serialist" who sounds "tonal." He himself refers to his "system" as _tintinabulli_ -- that is, playing on the sounds of a bell. When a bell rings, it rings not a single tone but a whole series of them, an overtone series. Pärt is conscious of that. But while he does have theoretical interests, he is first and foremost a composer of music. And his system is at the service of wider artistic concerns, and in his case, they are religious ones. In Pärt's music, silence is central. He wants you to hear the silence within the music. He wants you to experience, however indirectly, something of his contemplative vision of the world, of a grace-imbued world.

Here are three links. The first is from _Für Alina_ -- it's as stripped down and minimalist as it comes. The link has the score. You can watch his method in as transparent a way as possible.






Now listen to its rich, more orchestral possibilities. So a second link, to his _Tabula Rasa_. You will hear the bell-like sounds throughout:






Now, one last link. It's his _Da Pacem Domine_, where you can hear the same style applied to overtly religious music -- and to vocals.






You might like his music. You might not. That is not the point. The point is that Pärt is an artist who has things to say musically. He felt a need not only to innovate "tonality"; he felt a need to innovate serialism -- and he did so by returning to historical sources, to in-depth study of them. But his agenda is for the present. And, in his case, it is at the service of his deep religious convictions. For details, see the study of his music by Paul Hillier (who has recorded many of Pärt's works).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> "In a particular style" means that a thing is known. It has been around long enough to be "a style." Did Dickens write in the style of Dickens? No. He wrote. And once he had written, then readers could see stylistic similarities from novel to novel. Those things can be imitated, but that is not how Dickens wrote. That is something that gets left out of the equation over and over again. Beethoven imitated Haydn and Mozart, at first, but then he went on to write Beethoven music. Because he was Beethoven. Before him, no one wrote quite like that. After him, it was now possible to write like that, because Beethoven had already done it. But he didn't write Beethoven pieces by imitating Beethoven, by copying Beethoven's "style." He wrote Beethoven by being Beethoven. Really. It's the only way to do it.
> 
> Really, this desire for people to write today like composers wrote in the past is a logical glitch. Composers today do already write like composers in the past. The original ones, anyway. Lauridsen and Einaudi and Higdon and the like do not write like composers in the past. If Tchaikovsky, for instance, had written like Higdon, then all his pieces would have sounded like warmed-over Glinka. They don't. Because Tchaikovsky wrote new music. It's not new any more, of course, and it now sounds pleasant, to our ears. But that's hardly Tchaikovsky's fault, is it? We natter on about communication, about what speaks to us, forgetting that the music of the past that sounds so pleasant and so peaceful and so familiar and so right to us, now, did not sound that way to its first auditors, any more than the music of the present (as opposed to simply the music in the present) does to its first auditors.
> 
> ...


............................................................_Bravo!_ ..................................


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

some guy said:


> Once you have spoken, other people can look at what you've said and recognize stylistic features, which can, in turn, be imitated. But if your voice is original, if your voice is unique, if your voice is sui generis, then you are not speaking in "a style" or even in "styles." You're just speaking. Only later does style enter into it.


The question this raises for me is, just how many composers are truly unique? How many really have something original to say, and how many are just trying to use whatever talent they have by writing in styles pioneered by someone else? Who is qualified to answer that question, or should it be assumed that each listener is qualified to decide that individually? And, if a composer is not truly original, do we give them more credit for copying a style that is current than for copying one that we may personally find to be irrelevant to our world today?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

You can create your own tonality out of any scale, assuming that it is a given that a scale has a tonal center, listed as its first note of the scale. It's easy to then construct chords on each degree of that scale. They will automatically have a function, which is created by the intervallic relation of each scale degree to the key note. It will automatically be harmonic, as well, since sonance is measured progressively by the interval ratios, from simple to complex: 1:1, 2:3, 3:4, etc.

In any tonality, the vertical dimension is derived from consonance/dissonance of intervals in relation to "1" or tonic. These are expressed as "fractions" of that "1", falling within the octave (2:1). This is "ranked" by degree of increasing dissonance: 1:1, 2:3, 3:4, 4:5, 5:6, etc. These vertical intervals are then "projected" into the horizontal dimension as "functions:" I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, vii.

In a scale, the pull towards a tonic is determined by vertical harmonic factors, not horizontal "emphasis" by repetition or accent. That comes later.

This chart shows the ratios. The simpler ratios are the more consonant, because these numbers correspond directly to interference waves on the eardrum:

1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
3. major second (C-D) 8:9
4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
6. major third (C-E) 4:5
7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
10. octave (C-C') 1:2
11. unison (C-C) 1:1

So a C major scale's horizontal functions correspond to these harmonic relations; and one can observe how these functions were derived:

I — 1:1
ii — 8:9
iii — 4:5
IV — 3:4
V — 2:3
vi — 3:5
vii — 8:15

Their importance in establishing the tonality is be ranked by the order of consonance to dissonance, with smaller-number ratios being more consonant.

I — 1:1
V — 2:3
IV — 3:4
vi — 3:5
iii — 4:5
ii — 8:9
vii — 8:15

Using this model, a "function" hierarchy can be applied to any scale, after the degrees of dissonance are ranked.

Whole Tone scale: C-D-D-F#-G#-A#

C — 1:1
D —8:9
E —4:5
F#— 45:32
G# — 8:5
A# — 16:9

Whether or not you attach Roman numerals to the above is optional; but by the numbers, one can see a ranking:

(most consonant)
C — 1:1
E —4:5
G# — 8:5
D —8:9
A# — 16:9
F#— 45:32
(most dissonant)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Jobis said:


> One of the most respected composers of recent years wrote music founded on his own modern system of tonality. Messiaen.
> 
> His writings on the subject of his musical style are very detailed, to an almost academic standard. Like one of his predecessors, Bartok, his music is both tonal and forward-thinking.


No, Messiaen's music is not tonal. It's not atonal, either. It has no harmony in the old sense. Many of the chords he uses are based on their timbre, not the old tonal system of harmony. Also, there is no "harmonic function" or movement towards a goal in Messiaen, as there is in tonality.

He's modern, but not tonal.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> No, Messiaen's music is not tonal. It's not atonal, either. It has no harmony in the old sense. Many of the chords he uses are based on their timbre, not the old tonal system of harmony. Also, there is no "harmonic function" or movement towards a goal in Messiaen, as there is in tonality.
> 
> He's modern, but not tonal.


I beg to differ, to be specific he's a modal composer and modal music is essentially tonal, though not in the common practice sense.

You idea of 'harmony in the old sense' is nonsense really, as it only refers to a narrow window of musical history in the western tradition.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2014)

kikko said:


> Calm down. I was only clarifing the question for "some guy".
> 
> I've actually read at all the answers.


All I'm saying is that this thread's premise is no different from asking "What if a composer eventually decides to write music without common-practice tonality?" - It's just an eyebrow raiser. Either that, or you've just stepped out of a time machine, in which case I must ask who had such technology over a hundred years ago.

Here, let me help you lift that rock.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

Jobis said:


> I want to frame this post and put it on my wall!


Haha! Please do!!


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

Alypius said:


> You might like his music. You might not. That is not the point.


Sweet!

Thanks for saying this.

I started a thread awhile back to explore this idea. The negative reactions were, um, negative. So it's nice to see it coming up like this in another discussion.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

kikko said:


> ....
> Maybe because music can run out?


Interesting that you pose that question. I agree that good musical ideas can (or largerly have) run out in the sense that great composers of calibre seems to diminish as we get closer to our days. Or maybe "everything has already been done", so we resort to anything-ness that makes a noise equals music (or even silence is music according to Cage). So it seems music has long lost its soul, and anything literally can be music audible or not. So if you accept that idea, then music has actually NOT run out because a motor car driving by can be music. Hopefuuly that helps with your question.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> Interesting that you pose that question. I agree that good musical ideas can (or largerly have) run out in the sense that great composers of calibre seems to diminish as we get closer to our days.


Just like train tracks seem to diminish as they get farther away from us.

They don't, of course, or the trains would quickly fall off of them. Oh! Wait!! The trains get smaller, too. Whew. So it's all OK. (I've been on so many trains in my life that I am now only a few centimeters tall.)



ArtMusic said:


> Or maybe "everything has already been done"


Or maybe this canard will never die. Everything that has been done has, indeed, been done. So?



ArtMusic said:


> so we resort to anything-ness....


Yeah. Like Mozart. Since Boccherini had already tilled the fertile soil of music, all that was left for Mozart was the rocky soil on the hillside. (This was a contemporary assessment of Mr. Herr Wolfgang.) Oddly enough, when Beethoven came along, another critic noticed that since Mozart (!) and Haydn had already tilled the fertile soil et cetera. Yep. Different critic, different composer, same metaphor.

And then Berlioz came along. And it's true what you're thinking. Since Beethoven et cetera.

It's all true.

Nothing has been left to do for hundreds of years, Art. And yet, people have somehow managed to keep doing things. Some of those people might be your favorite composers, those worthless resorters.:lol: After Boccherini, music basically died.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Originally Posted by millionrainbows:
*
*No, Messiaen's music is not tonal. It's not atonal, either. It has no harmony in the old sense. Many of the chords he uses are based on their timbre, not the old tonal system of harmony. Also, there is no "harmonic function" or movement towards a goal in Messiaen, as there is in tonality. **He's modern, but not tonal.*



Jobis said:


> I beg to differ, to be specific he's a modal composer and modal music is essentially tonal, though not in the common practice sense.
> 
> *You idea of 'harmony in the old sense' is nonsense really, as it only refers to a narrow window of musical history in the western tradition.*


I'll just quote from this book in order to substantiate what I said:












> "For Messiaen...harmony is decorative rather than functional, and tonality becomes absorbed into a broader conception of modality...


So far, so good, this agrees generally with what you said about modality. But if we read further:



> ...The result is a harmony in which part-writing has no real function, a harmony that is totally vertical rather than horizontal.


This validates what I said about Messiaen having no "harmonic function. Here is a larger excerpt:



> ...In order to understand the way in which Messiaen developed as a composer, it is necessary to bear in mind that he has his musical roots in the anti-symphonic outlook of Debussy rather than the nineteenth-century symphonic tradition...In 1942 Messiaen published his theoretical treatise _Technique de mon langage musical_ in which he sets out the essential features of his early musical language. His sectional rather than organic conception of traditional forms, especially of sonata form, is revealed in his discussion of his own procedures which are derived from them. The situation could hardly be otherwise, *as traditional symphonic procedure arose from a harmonic practice which depended on progression and on the tensions and relaxations created by the principle of dissonance and resolution.* *For Messiaen, on the other hand, harmony is decorative rather than functional, and tonality becomes absorbed into a broader conception of modality. This lends his music a static rather than a dynamic quality, his harmony existing in a state which is neither tension nor relaxation-the mood of the moment is captured and transfixed in a timelessness which is implied by the structure of the music itself. The result is a harmony in which part-writing has no real function, a harmony that is totally vertical rather than horizontal. For most of the time, constructional harmonic relationships play no part in Messiaen's music, except at certain points in some works where simple dominant-tonic or subdominant-tonic relationships become evident. The suspension of psychological time in his music is particularly apt for the works which involve religious symbolism.*


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

some guy said:


> Just like train tracks seem to diminish as they get farther away from us.
> 
> They don't, of course, or the trains would quickly fall off of them. Oh! Wait!! The trains get smaller, too. Whew. So it's all OK. (I've been on so many trains in my life that I am now only a few centimeters tall.)
> 
> ...


It is most interesting that you use fine examples from the past (Mozart, Berlioz) to explain your thinking. I agree with those great examples of the past. Great examples of the past indeed.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> It is most interesting that you use fine examples from the past (Mozart, Berlioz) to explain your thinking. I agree with those great examples of the past. Great examples of the past indeed.


Except that he was using these to illustrate that people made claims about these now accepted great composers that you don't agree with, namely that they "proved" that music was all run out and that there was nothing worthwhile left.

So you don't agree with his examples at all, unless you are going back on what you said before.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> Interesting that you pose that question. I agree that good musical ideas can (or largerly have) run out in the sense that great composers of calibre seems to diminish as we get closer to our days. Or maybe "everything has already been done", so we resort to anything-ness that makes a noise equals music (or even silence is music according to Cage). So it seems music has long lost its soul, and anything literally can be music audible or not. So if you accept that idea, then music has actually NOT run out because a motor car driving by can be music. Hopefuuly that helps with your question.


Okay... this is very important: yes, in the 21st century, everything can be used as part of a composition, from violins to clarinets to human singers to wind machines to water to live electronics with pre-recorded sounds etc. but it is _not a resort to anything-ness_. A lot of it is incredible music, communicative and engaging. Composers over the last 50 years have expanded the range of what can be used for music to include everything, but it's not because we've adopted the tranquillizing belief that "any music is good". Quite the contrary: there still is good music, great music, sub-par music, bad music... _At no point in time did we decide that any music is good._ The second you decide that, you've lost the point of art and tranquillized yourself to death. You've lost the ability to think and discriminate.

Composers have been expanding their technical tools because it allows for _greater expression_, not because we've accepted that anything is good. And speaking of expression, the number of great composers has _increased_ over the years, because there is so much opportunity to do amazing and unique things. The classical era has only three composers that we consider masters, but the modern era has tons of masters. Indeed, the state of classical music (i.e. art music) has never been better! And in 100 years, it will still be going strong... as long as we haven't destroyed our species through nuclear holocaust.

Please see the stuff that we've been posting in the current listening thread... a bunch of random burps, farts, chainsaws, motor horns, and electronic static probably would suck, but the stuff modern composers have been writing does not suck.

Sigh... I wish John Cage never "wrote" 4'33", because it's neither good nor representative of modern classical music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> The question this raises for me is, just how many composers are truly unique? How many really have something original to say, and how many are just trying to use whatever talent they have by writing in styles pioneered by someone else? Who is qualified to answer that question, or should it be assumed that each listener is qualified to decide that individually? And, if a composer is not truly original, do we give them more credit for copying a style that is current than for copying one that we may personally find to be irrelevant to our world today?


I'm rather non-plussed any of these questions come up, let alone that there is a query about 'who decides,' as if the cognoscenti, i.e.composers, academic theorists, the performers, along with general public have not always determined who the outstanding artists are.

Just think of all 'the big names' in art, or other fields such as engineering (which of the world's suspension bridges are the most outstanding? for example) and that would lead anyone to conclude it is those works which are outstanding in their innovative solutions, as well as those works having a very distinct aesthetic and 'personality,' readily identifiable from the rest which may be near to like but wholly lack those distinctive qualities.

These qualities, it seems, are generally "what the people want," and, even, it seems of which the general public are readiest to laud vs. praising _writing within the style of the era but without being either innovative and without showing a hint of a distinct personality_. The negatives there are pretty synonymous with what most would call bland or banal, after all -- and I don't know of any citations praising such works, or prizes being handed out for lack of innovation accompanied by blandness.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> Interesting that you pose that question. I agree that good musical ideas can (or largerly have) run out in the sense that great composers of calibre seems to diminish as we get closer to our days. Or maybe "everything has already been done", so we resort to anything-ness that makes a noise equals music (or even silence is music according to Cage). So it seems music has long lost its soul, and anything literally can be music audible or not. So if you accept that idea, then music has actually NOT run out because a motor car driving by can be music. Hopefuuly that helps with your question.


With all due respect, Mr. ArtMusic, I'm sure you and your modernist opposition can agree on one thing: we're all looking forward to the day this agenda is laid to rest, and we can simply use forums to talk about things we like rather than to vehemently insist that others despise the things we despise.

TL;DR: TBH, bro, I wish you would stop.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> With all due respect, Mr. ArtMusic, I'm sure you and your modernist opposition can agree on one thing: we're all looking forward to the day this agenda is laid to rest, and we can simply use forums to talk about things we like rather than to vehemently insist that others despise the things we despise.
> 
> TL;DR: TBH, bro, I wish you would stop.


I agree.

I have learned a long time ago criticizing the music other people like is a waste of time. I have never succeeded in convincing anyone who likes rap music that it is bad. All I have ever succeeded in doing is coming across as a complete %&^&*(^%&*.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

When you come right down to it, all that composers have ever done is arranging different sounds of varying pitch and duration intermingled with silences. Some composers in a more inspired fashion than others. Systems, rules and forms have come and gone. It's not that any one of them is essential to music. However, they might be essential to someone's _idea_ of music, which is fair enough.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

PetrB said:


> It is no one's fault, not even your own, really, if you make a readier connection -- via the art of music, anyway -- to sentiments from another age, as much as those sentiments (via their 'sound world') do still convey the sentiments to our modern selves. _Those sentiments also spoke to the contemporaries for whom it was contemporary music -- exactly as some contemporary music speaks to its contemporary audiences._
> 
> It is certainly no one's fault if they feel and express their sentiments from their own time in a mode which seems appropriate to them for that time.
> 
> ...


The main reason I don't actively seek out the latest contemporary classical music is because I am still discovering what seems to be an endless amount of treasures from the past. Maybe someday I'll be satisfied and I'll get the feeling that I have to move on. Maybe then I'll be able to catch up with what is going on today. But for now, I don't really take an interest in what's new and what's hot, not while I don't have a good overview of the music from the past. It's more of a practical approach because time is limited. That has nothing to do with escapism.

The idea that music runs out is of course downright silly. I'd say that in theory there's still a near infinite pieces of music possible in any given style from any era. It's possible that a composer today composes artful music using older methods (ignoring what has happened since), while still finding "his own voice" compared to the composers from the past, who also have their own voice. It's not likely to happen, I guess, but that's another thing. I just don't see why we have to be so strict about it and consider it as something "not done". If such music is being made successfully, it could happily coexist with contemporary music. The way I see it, anything is possible and allowed.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Before recording, music had to be scored and written down. This necessarily limited what music could be; it set up the parameters of pitch and rhythm. So these are the real 'orthodox elements of music.

Also, there developed a 'limiting tradition' of instruments which could be used in a composition. Also, a tradition of forms, and procedures attached to those forms.

With the advent of recording, *any* sound which existed could be recorded. Then the modern form of musique concrete was developed, along with electronic music.

If you are a traditional, orthodox musical listener, then of course you will seek out music which is concerned with traditional syntactic parameters of pitch and rhythm, and also uses orthodox forms and instruments. This could also include Serialism and contemporary fans, since all is the same except the musical "syntax" of tonality and departures from that.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> I agree.
> 
> I have learned a long time ago criticizing the music other people like is a waste of time. I have never succeeded in convincing anyone who likes rap music that it is bad. All I have ever succeeded in doing is coming across as a complete %&^&*(^%&*.


I don't think rap music is concerned with "music" or musical elements per se; I think it is verbal rhyming poetry which expresses the urban (mainly black) experience. The "music" and beat is simply there to support the verbosity.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I'm rather non-plussed any of these questions come up.
> 
> Just think of all 'the big names' in art, or other fields such as engineering (which of the world's suspension bridges are the most outstanding? for example) and that would lead anyone to conclude it is those works which are outstanding in their innovative solutions, as well as those works having a very distinct aesthetic and 'personality,' readily identifiable from the rest which may be near to like but wholly lack those distinctive qualities.


I know next to nothing about engineering. I could look at a bridge or a building and say, "Wow! Isn't that amazing!" and Joe-know-it-all who has studied the subject for years could walk up behind me and say, "Not really. Claus van der-Something did the same thing ten years ago in Belgium, and did it better. The guy who made this thing you're looking at just copied his ideas." And, I would be made to look as much a fool as I'm in danger of making myself look by responding to this post.

Hence my question, "who is qualified to say?" In the above case, Joe-know-it-all is qualified to say and I am not.

Hope you're more plussed now.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

Vesteralen said:


> In the above case, Joe-know-it-all is qualified to say and I am not.


In the cyber world, however, in all cases, Joe-know-it-all is never qualified to say anything and will be consistently and relentlessly vilified for disagreeing with the knownothings or for having positive opinions about things the knownothings excoriate.

Surely you've noticed that by now!


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

some guy said:


> In the cyber world, however, in all cases, Joe-know-it-all is never qualified to say anything and will be consistently and relentlessly vilified for disagreeing with the knownothings or for having positive opinions about things the knownothings excoriate.
> 
> Surely you've noticed that by now!


Poor Joe just keeps beating his head against that cyber-wall.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DeepR said:


> The main reason I don't actively seek out the latest contemporary classical music is because I am still discovering what seems to be an endless amount of treasures from the past. Maybe someday I'll be satisfied and I'll get the feeling that I have to move on. Maybe then I'll be able to catch up with what is going on today. But for now, I don't really take an interest in what's new and what's hot, not while I don't have a good overview of the music from the past. It's more of a practical approach because time is limited. That has nothing to do with escapism.


This is a choice, but I am hard pressed to believe that you do the same with the visual arts, literature, i.e. that you have not 'gotten around to seeing' a play written within your lifetime "because I am still discovering what seems to be an endless amount of treasures from the past," etc. A _choice_ it is, and practicality has nothing to do with that choice  
(I am not one of those few who are constantly hectoring those who just will not listen to anything modern or contemporary, but am always more than ready to defend when those who bash it without much reason other than they don't get it or care for it get on _their_ 'expert' soapboxes. The bashing is not my kind of sport, nor if I recall, is it at all your kind of sport.]

Your choice to peruse the musical past only, at least to date -- appears as much a rationale as anything else having a very weak pretense of being 'reason.' I doubt that same rationale has you applying it to literature and all the other arts I mentioned -- which I think you probably have not 'avoided.' Rationale or no, avoidance or ignoring are each still a kind of escapism -- while I hasten to add one could say _any time spent with art_ could be a kind of avoidance or escape from all other realities 



DeepR said:


> The idea that music runs out is of course downright silly. I'd say that in theory there's still a near infinite pieces of music possible in any given style from any era. It's possible that a composer today composes artful music using older methods (ignoring what has happened since), while still finding "his own voice" compared to the composers from the past, who also have their own voice. It's not likely to happen, I guess, but that's another thing. I just don't see why we have to be so strict about it and consider it as something "not done". If such music is being made successfully, it could happily coexist with contemporary music. The way I see it, anything is possible and allowed.


I am in happy agreement with you there, and have no sympathies with either the camp who advocate that all old procedures are invalid, or the camp who have it that the old procedures should be rather rigidly adhered to. To quote my composition teacher once again, "A piece is tonal if it works." To quote a piano teacher, "Whatever works."

There is no set vocabulary as one way to write, but part of the issue here, stated or not, is those advocating 'dear old tonality' are often about as Luddite as basically saying, 'people today should write more directly like _a composer from the past two hundred years prior 1900._ Well, if they can write like that, or anyone can, and it will not be heard as pastiche, devoid of any non-mimicked 'expression,' -- give that composer an award


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> I know next to nothing about engineering. I could look at a bridge or a building and say, "Wow! Isn't that amazing!" and Joe-know-it-all who has studied the subject for years could walk up behind me and say, "Not really. Claus van der-Something did the same thing ten years ago in Belgium, and did it better. The guy who made this thing you're looking at just copied his ideas." And, I would be made to look as much a fool as I'm in danger of making myself look by responding to this post.
> 
> Hence my question, "who is qualified to say?" In the above case, Joe-know-it-all is qualified to say and I am not.
> 
> Hope you're more plussed now.


I'm thinking that just about anyone, including those with no training in architecture or engineering, could make an independent call on which of these two bridges, both well-meeting their function, very similar, i.e. virtually 'the same thing,' has a higher aesthetic kick for us Joe Averages...






-----







...unless one feels intimidated about 'not knowing about architecture and engineering,' before freely naming which is 'prettier,' then that person would have to wait about, slave to the 'authorized opinion,' before daring to speak their mind, a sheep waiting for a herder-leader.
(Of course if you are an utter pragmatist without an aesthetic sense in any part of your soul, both bridges 'stay up, effectively and efficiently let traffic cross the water,' and that is that 

And just as far more than a mere handful of architects and engineers have weighed in with their accolades for The Golden Gate Bridge as 'aesthetically superb,' --- so it goes with the "who decides?" call on that vast majority of works of music and those composers generally considered 'great,' the cognoscenti and critics being a 000.00something percent of the whole who have had their say.

'Who is qualified to say?" If not all of us, collectively, a great many of us, it seems.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

So, which one was more innovative? Which one do you like better?

Answer to question one - the first one, from Atlanta was built five years before the masterpiece from New York.

My answer to question two: the second one. from Bradford PA 1903 built one year after the building in New York. It doesn't have a greater design and it isn't more innovative, but it pleases my aesthetic sense, for whatever it is, more. I think the other two are just plain ugly (in the sense of frightful).

However, my own particular taste proves nothing about these buildings. It is simply my uninformed reaction. It doesn't enrage me that number three is the most enduring image of the three. So what? Might I feel differently if I study architecture deeply? Maybe. I don't care to. The subject really doesn't interest me.

BUT: I am not going to go on to some architecture web-site and start making disparaging remarks about the 1902 Flatiron Building. I have the humility to recognize my own limitations in the matter and would not be interested in arguing with people who know about architecture.

If someone came along and wanted to build a building like number two in my area, I might recognize it as an anachronism, but at the same time, it might actually please me.

So, my point to the OP was - do what inspires you. You don't have to force yourself to write in a style that does not speak to your inner person right now, just because it's more current. Say whatever is meaningful to you and be willing to grow along with it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> View attachment 47805
> View attachment 47806
> View attachment 47807
> 
> ...


But your choice _is informed,_ by what I would call a liking for "coziness," and that which is most familiar, smaller height, "neighborhood scale," etc.

You said yourself, unwittingly perhaps, the Flatiron in Manhattan is a _masterpiece,_ its Atlanta predecessor, 'innovative.' but look at the chopped off end of the wedge of the Atlanta building and the two rather clunky elements, the ledge and capital ledge vs. the unbroken line of the Flatiron with its flared top edge. By one criterion, "nothing extra that could be added or taken away without ruining the integrity of the piece" is very much part of what is at work in evaluating buildings, art, music, writing, engineering, etc. -- that has the Flatiron an elegant masterpiece, the innovative Atlanta building a clunkier by far solution to the same problem of building on a triangular lot site.

The building you prefer is more 'homey' cozy, would fit in well in a small town or Dutch "Dorpje" -- village, and a liking for the homey and cozy is not at all wrong, but does show a general lack of adventure, i.e. leaving home for other places which are 'other' may not be on your charts or in your comfort zone. Fine. Then other than 'wondering why' those things outside that spectrum are evaluated by people outside the parameters of that cozy home zone -- which is perfectly valid, -- is a rather idle wondering, if one is not willing to roam, push one's boundaries. Same is very true of art, one preference over the other not better or less, but I would ask then if that is a known comfort area, why even trouble yourself with the rest outside of those parameters... it is not as if the world of modernists are knocking at your door in your home town or village and bodily seizing you and dragging you out to expose you to all that "ugly = frightful" modernist stuff.

Too, is it "frightful" simply because it is not redolent of home, cozy and familiar, a kind of bogey-man? Well, that power to ignore is anyone's at a push of their proverbial personal buttons. If that is so, don't venture forth, even virtually, i.e. do not click on, etc. and stay within your comfort zones. Especially when it is 'just music,' 'just art,' we are all free to pick and choose. I just can't imagine wholesale rejecting something and then even pretending to have an interest as to why others like it or deem it 'beautiful,' especially if you have already written it off as 'ugly-frightening.'

Curiosity got the cat, in spite of that opinion or resolve?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*Nina Rota ~ Piano Concerto in C major for piano and orchestra (1960)*

Nina Rota ~ Piano Concerto in C major for piano and orchestra (1960)

... and in C major, even


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I think we are speaking at cross purposes here. My reason for not venturing out into the world of architecture is that it just doesn't interest me as a subject. I don't wonder at other peoples' tastes. I just don't care. However, if I did care, and I would venture out into it I am willing to concede that my tastes might change as I got to know it better. That was my original point - that education and familiarity have the power to sharpen our powers of discernment. This is what puts Joe-know-it-all in a better position to judge than Joe-average.

The same is not true about music. I do care about it, and I do venture out into unfamiliar areas and try new things. You seem to be laboring under the impression that I have insular musical tastes and champion the old over the new. I don't do that. I am curious, and I am respectful of the tastes of others.

It just bothers me that more time is spent by many people here in bashing the taste of others than in making music inviting. When I first started listening more than forty years ago, I was very insular and judgmental, but I expanded my boundaries through experimentation. Unlike you, perhaps, and a few others here, my experiments haven't led me to feeling a real home in the modern era. I confess that I still have more of an affinity with some of the music of the past, but that doesn't mean I close my ears to the new.

Just as with popular music - I've listened to a to a lot of different genres. I tend to favor three or four - hard bop jazz, prog rock, some folk, acoustic world music. It's not wrong to have a "home" or "homes" in music, as long as you don't build walls around your home and refuse to consider the common humanity of your neighbors and even try to get to know them better.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> I think we are speaking at cross purposes here. My reason for not venturing out into the world of architecture is that it just doesn't interest me as a subject. I don't wonder at other peoples' tastes. I just don't care. However, if I did care, and I would venture out into it I am willing to concede that my tastes might change as I got to know it better. That was my original point - that education and familiarity have the power to sharpen our powers of discernment. This is what puts Joe-know-it-all in a better position to judge than Joe-average.
> 
> The same is not true about music. I do care about it, and I do venture out into unfamiliar areas and try new things. You seem to be laboring under the impression that I have insular musical tastes and champion the old over the new. I don't do that. I am curious, and I am respectful of the tastes of others.
> 
> ...


I apologize if I thought your musical tastes were insular, and I should not jump to that since I barely well know, generally, but a few TC members taste. Please accept this as sincere.

I don't think it worth the bother to track how much bashing, which camp, but there was, until lately, a relentless implicit bashing of most everything musical and contemporary in a several years long sequence of polls, and there is nothing near as like or as much re: bashing older music.

I heartily agree that bashing leads absolutely nowhere except irritation with the basher(s). I am always ready to jump back in and defend the modern and contemporary, because I am quite at home with it, and it is the most often misunderstood, bashed, etc. Arguing with the intransigent basher is pointless, it is rather like "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." -- i.e. the basher either digs in deeper, or gets more aggressively nasty.

Imagine if the subject of bashing were Beethoven, and it was frequent and near constant. I don't imagine the members would put up with that very long at all, postings implicit be damned: the subject being dearer to a vast majority, more complaints would go in to the mods... pity those who don't care either way have not been reporting the bashing of contemporary music as if it concerned them equally 

I'm afraid until such time as those powers that be feel less alphabetically bound to the ToS and can see that any exception can be made as warranted, the bashing, from any and all directions, will continue.

I think that reflects as badly on the membership as the site itself -- not that all has to be a universal agreement and lovefest (that would be sooo boring But not everyone, whether having learned in a setting as taught by musicians or having learned on their own, has anything like the proper equipment to discuss much of anything musical from a more detached viewpoint, and many think that means all passion for the subject, or from people, is denied -- which is nonsense, but nonetheless that is how many 'feel.'

This is why we see the hotly offended because someone, even putting it politely and couched in moderate and matter of fact terms, does not like a person's beloved composer X, over whom that fan gets 'all emotional.' You would think a disliking of composer X, to those people, was a direct criticism of their personal emotions, and not a comment upon a composer or piece!

Either through observation, intuition, or reprimand in training, I've figured out that, for example, I can voice my dislike / lack of preference for Tchaikovsky while not personally 'losing any face,' in also acknowledging him as a great composer. For some, that seems a dichotomy, which it is not.

So it should go, especially if the basher really 'just does not like' and understands that much less about the subjects of their scorn.

It is all rather like the rules of debate -- i.e. even if you may be wrong, at least make a good argument for it, based on reason, and not merely on your feelings. _That_ makes for interesting and lively discussion, vs. a mere stating of opinion without any further articulate statements pro or con. (Perhaps the rules of debate should be an entry exam for admission to TC membership? I would not be, I think, the only one to need to brush up on those 

Best regards.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Thanks. I understand and agree in principle with what you stated. I can only add to it a personal impatience with the "hidden agenda" kind of thread-starting. But, I don't think the OP on this thread was doing anything of the kind. My impression was that it was a legitimate question, and I think several responses, including yours, have addressed that question with respect and substance.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> I know next to nothing about engineering. I could look at a bridge or a building and say, "Wow! Isn't that amazing!" and Joe-know-it-all who has studied the subject for years could walk up behind me and say, "Not really. Claus van der-Something did the same thing ten years ago in Belgium, and did it better. The guy who made this thing you're looking at just copied his ideas." And, I would be made to look as much a fool as I'm in danger of making myself look by responding to this post.


For me what is distressing is when an architect is admiring a great bridge and a person who does not know the difference between a bolt and a rivet comes up and tells him it is flawed design.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> For me what is distressing is when an architect is admiring a great bridge and a person who does not know the difference between a bolt and a rivet comes up and tells him it is flawed design.


Bingo. Everyone, with no knowledge or experience of the thing being criticized, is an expert critic. LOL.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

How dare you tell me that my lack of knowledge or experience is a limitation!!

:lol:


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Hey, that's what the internet's for. Us hoagies who didn't quite make it in the world can come and express our torment.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think rap music is concerned with "music" or musical elements per se; I think it is verbal rhyming poetry which expresses the urban (mainly black) experience. The "music" and beat is simply there to support the verbosity.


Much like Leonard Cohen...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Back to the OP for a moment at least, this comment, taken from an article on composer Ricky Ian Gordon, who has several operas out, as to the variance of his style (Borscht Circuit to contemporary while still quite tonal influences) and about its not being 'the latest avant-garde harmonic language.'

"Gordon boldly writes exactly what he wants and doesn't give a tuppence what anyone else thinks. *We are all so taken-aback, bowled over by its refreshing effectiveness that we don't give a thought to compositional schools and what is in or out.*" ~ Gregory Sullivan Isaacs

Basically, if a new piece, regardless of whether it is tonal, conservatively tonal, progressively tonal, atonal, etc. "bowls people over by its refreshing effectiveness." -- fresh, effective, being the pith of it -- then the technical means are not the end, the only way, but the means in the hands of a 'fresh and effective' composer.

If a composer can produce something both fresh and effective _and it strikes listeners as somehow strong,_, then technical means be damned -- they are but a means to an end -- they are near to moot when considering the result.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

kikko said:


> What if I compose something very innovative and never done before by any of the greatest composers using the "dear old" tonal system?
> 
> Will people don't care about it only because it's not atonal or what?
> 
> ...


My view on all of this, for what it's worth;

99.9% of classical listeners are very conservative and stubbornly dogmatic people when it comes to listening, even if they don't wish to be. In classical music, "enjoying contemporary music" means enjoying something which was written in the past 30 to 40 years, and even then often doesn't include very much written in the past 5 to 10 years. In almost every other genre of music, something written even only 10 years ago is considered to be on the cusp of becoming old.

Bearing that in mind, I would advise you to take people's opinions here with a grain of salt. I mean no offense to anyone here, but in my experience, listener's opinions are often vapid, meaningless, and damaging at worst for a composer because their opinions tend to be about the past and other composers. They do not know what is right for you, and they do not what you are capable of producing. Only you yourself are capable of figuring that out. Therefore, write for yourself, and your own evolving feelings about music alone.

You speak of innovation. Do not be fooled into believing that innovation is necessary, or somehow indicates that you are a "good" composer worth listening to. If you've come across a new way of doing things which really works for you, use it. If you want to write music in some crazy new monorhythmicheteropolyphonicmicroquarteratonal style, do it. If you find unlimited pleasure in writing lieder in a faithfully Schubertian style, do it, and don't let anybody tell you that you're wrong, worthless, imitative, or derivative for doing it. Tonal music is only dead if it's dead to you.

With regards to people actually caring about what you're making; No matter how much experience you have, it will always be impossible to predict what other people will like and care about. Because of this, I think your best bet is to do something that at least you yourself can care about. At least then, your audience only risks being a minimum of 1 instead of 0.

Also, there are very few norms in music today. We're living in an unprecedented time where a composer can pretty much do _anything_ they want. Don't squander that freedom by trying to live up to someone else's expectations.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2014)

StevenOBrien said:


> You speak of innovation. Do not be fooled into believing that innovation is necessary, or somehow indicates that you are a "good" composer worth listening to. If you've come across a new way of doing things which really works for you, use it.


Didn't this particular contradiction just come up in another thread recently? Or maybe it was this one. Anyway, it's a curious contradiction. Alarming to see it coming up twice in the space of a couple of days.

But really. What does innovation mean aside from "a new way of doing things"? So don't worry about innovation so long as you can innovate. Hmmm.



StevenOBrien said:


> If you find unlimited pleasure in writing lieder in a faithfully Schubertian style, do it, and don't let anybody tell you that you're wrong, worthless, imitative, or derivative for doing it.


Well, while some of the items on this list are arguable, some are simply not. If you write lieder in a faithfully Schubertian style, then you will be being imitative and derivative. That's what "in a[n older style]" means. Again. It's that same contradiction, isn't it? If you write something imitative, don't let anyone tell you that it's imitative. Hmmmm.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

some guy said:


> Didn't this particular contradiction just come up in another thread recently? Or maybe it was this one. Anyway, it's a curious contradiction. Alarming to see it coming up twice in the space of a couple of days.
> 
> But really. What does innovation mean aside from "a new way of doing things"? So don't worry about innovation so long as you can innovate. Hmmm.
> 
> Well, while some of the items on this list are arguable, some are simply not. If you write lieder in a faithfully Schubertian style, then you will be being imitative and derivative. That's what "in a[n older style]" means. Again. It's that same contradiction, isn't it? If you write something imitative, don't let anyone tell you that it's imitative. Hmmmm.


I said that innovation is not necessary and should not be forced or stressed over if you're perfectly happy working in a manner which some people would suggest is unoriginal or derivative. There are many composers who come out of education today too ashamed to write a major chord because they've been loured into the stigma that even doing something so simple is "unoriginal", "imitative", "derivative" etc. etc. At the same time, if you come across a new way of doing something, and you find it agreeable, then by all means use it.

There are so many composers, particularly beginners, who write music loosely in the style of a composer they adore. They very much enjoy writing this music, and others sometimes enjoy it too. They post it on forums like this one, and it often gets torn apart purely because it _is_ imitative and derivative, regardless of its inherent quality. Those adjectives are flung at the composer as prejudiced insults with people accepting them as fact without any question whatsoever, and it has gotten to the point where many composers in the process of being educated, as I said, can't even write a major chord without some academic ******* breathing down their neck over it. People simply do not realize how indescribably difficult it becomes to create something without voices inside your head telling you at every single minuscule step that what you're doing is worthless because what you just did has already been done by X composer. There is so much more to saying something than just making sure you're saying something completely new. The sooner everybody realizes this, the better.

So much constructive criticism could be offered to these composers instead. Their ears could be opened to new insights about the music that they love enough to imitate, which they may have missed. Instead, the composer is often just told to go off and find their own style, or do something "original". In other words, they're often told to work in a vacuum and likely do something they hate. How is this helpful? What is it achieving other than destroying any enjoyment, encouragement or inspiration that this composer has left?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Innovation certainly isn't necessary in order to create worthwhile art, but it's been a consistent characteristic of western art music for many hundreds of years. Innovation is rightly praised because it pushes boundaries and stimulates the human mind; it is about discovery and mastery.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Innovation certainly isn't necessary in order to create worthwhile art, but it's been a consistent characteristic of western art music for many hundreds of years. Innovation is rightly praised because it pushes boundaries and stimulates the human mind; it is about discovery and mastery.


Absolutely. I never suggested that innovation shouldn't be praised, simply that a perceived lack of innovation or originality shouldn't cause a piece to be dismissed outright because of it, which unfortunately seems to happen quite often.

I'm skeptical of the idea that people enjoy the music of composers like Beethoven because of its innovations. In the context of all of the composers who have come after him, some of his innovations have almost become overused cliches since his time (e.g. a sense of emotional overwroughtness at times, which grew through the romantic era). Simply because Beethoven was the first to do certain things wouldn't immunize him from how we now perceive things, and yet his music is still as powerful and as moving as ever (to people with no knowledge of the history of music too). If innovation is so primarily important, then why do we still hold music which can no longer be considered innovative in such high regard? If one of Beethoven's symphonies suddenly appeared to us in 2014, would it be any worse than it was in 1814 because of contemporary circumstances? I'd argue therefore that there must be something much more important and integral to music than simply finding a new way of doing/saying things. I would argue that it is nothing more than a means to a superior end.

Yes, finding new ways of doing things enables more to be said (figuratively, of course), which is fantastic, but should we not judge what's being said and how it's being said as opposed to the mere fact that it's become possible to say it? What sense is there in being critical of a work which may say something of value, simply because it doesn't say it in any new way?

I suppose we then come to the question of "What if someone is merely saying something that has already been said?". In literature, some people would argue that there are only seven basic fundamental plots, and yet we still have all the diversity of literature. Music, being abstract, is likely impossible to classify effectively in a comparable manner. Bearing these in mind, how could we even begin to suggest that one piece of music is saying something that was already said in another piece of music, and is there much point in even attempting to criticize a piece of music on that basis?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> I'm skeptical of the idea that people enjoy the music of composers like Beethoven because of its innovations. In the context of all of the composers who have come after him, some of his innovations have almost become overused cliches since his time (e.g. a sense of emotional overwroughtness at times, which grew through the romantic era). Simply because Beethoven was the first to do certain things wouldn't immunize him from how we now perceive things, and yet his music is still as powerful and as moving as ever (to people with no knowledge of the history of music too). If innovation is so primarily important, then why do we still hold music which can no longer be considered innovative in such high regard? If one of Beethoven's symphonies suddenly appeared to us in 2014, would it be any worse than it was in 1814 because of contemporary circumstances? I'd argue therefore that there must be something much more important and integral to music than simply finding a new way of doing/saying things. I would argue that it is nothing more than a means to a superior end.


I believe that the desire to innovate and the desire to create are connected. There are, of course, things that are new that do not lead anywhere because of their lack of utility, and things that are vital that do not seem to break new ground.

The whole "if Beethoven's symphonies were composed now, they would be just as good" argument strikes me as incoherent, simply because it asks us to consider an impossibility. Beethoven's symphonies cannot be composed now. They could only have been composed by Beethoven, in an era that fostered Beethoven's particular musical language and idiom. Of course a piece that is identical with Beethoven's Fifth has identical value. But a piece composed today in a reactionary style could never be Beethoven's Fifth.



StevenOBrien said:


> Yes, finding new ways of doing things enables more to be said (figuratively, of course), which is fantastic, but should we not judge what's being said and how it's being said as opposed to the mere fact that it's become possible to say it? What sense is there in being critical of a work which may say something of value, simply because it doesn't say it in any new way?


I should think that all criticism should be of the content of a work. Are you suggesting that others think differently? Give proof that they do.



StevenOBrien said:


> I suppose we then come to the question of "What if someone is merely saying something that has already been said?". In literature, some people would argue that there are only seven basic fundamental plots, and yet we still have all the diversity of literature. Music, being abstract, is likely impossible to classify effectively in a comparable manner. Bearing these in mind, how could we even begin to suggest that one piece of music is saying something that was already said in another piece of music, and is there much point in even attempting to criticize a piece of music on that basis?


We are not talking about taking a similar plot archetype (an analogy for this might be found in Schenkerian analysis), but taking specific elements of language.

It is as if one were to raid the King James Bible for phrases and words that one liked the sound of, such as "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" or "Thine house" and throw these together with a modern sensibility while pretending that language has not changed irrevocably in the intervening time.


----------



## kikko (Jun 19, 2014)

StevenOBrien said:


> \cut


Thanks that was encouraging =)


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> I believe that the desire to innovate and the desire to create are connected. There are, of course, things that are new that do not lead anywhere because of their lack of utility, and things that are vital that do not seem to break new ground.


That's a good point. There's a desire to bring something new into existence, but it's rare that any work of art is completely new. If we're going to criticize something based on the fact that it uses older forms and older chord progressions, then isn't it reasonable to suggest that we should also be criticizing its use of something as basic as the twelve tone scale, which is even older and even more "overused"? The specific choice of things that are criticized seems to treat art as being similar to technology, where an innovation occurs, and then a new innovation replaces it because it performs a certain function more adequately. Why is this the case? It doesn't make sense to me. In art, older forms don't become obsolete, they don't become inferior to newer forms. The works of older composers are still thoroughly enjoyed, and not in a nostalgic sense.



Mahlerian said:


> The whole "if Beethoven's symphonies were composed now, they would be just as good" argument strikes me as incoherent, simply because it asks us to consider an impossibility. Beethoven's symphonies cannot be composed now. They could only have been composed by Beethoven, in an era that fostered Beethoven's particular musical language and idiom. Of course a piece that is identical with Beethoven's Fifth has identical value. But a piece composed today in a reactionary style could never be Beethoven's Fifth.


Let me try to put it another way, then. If it turned out that Beethoven had completed another symphony before his death which had been concealed from us, and it suddenly came to light today, it would likely be revered and held in the highest regard (assuming it was actually a good work that could stand up to the quality of his other symphonies, and not just hyped because of the significance of the composer). Assuming there were no questions about the quality of the work, what would the reaction be if it suddenly came to light twenty years later that it was, in fact, a 21st century forgery by someone who had managed to absorb themselves in Beethoven's style and mindset (I realize it requires a leap of faith)? Would the work still be accepted?



Mahlerian said:


> I should think that all criticism should be of the content of a work. Are you suggesting that others think differently? Give proof that they do.


Here's one example: http://www.talkclassical.com/32609-piano-concerto-d.html#post675446 - They're not difficult to find.

I should clarify that I'm not suggesting there aren't problems with the content of many of these works, but I think we need to start clarifying what we find disagreeable and figure out how we can best help composers achieve their goals. I don't think that a comment like "You're 250 years too late!" is helpful in any way. A comment like "I see you've taken a lot of inspiration from Mozart's style here. I've listened, and there's a lot of questionable things in the music that don't sound authentic, such as... etc. etc." is much more helpful and constructive.



Mahlerian said:


> We are not talking about taking a similar plot archetype (an analogy for this might be found in Schenkerian analysis), but taking specific elements of language.
> 
> It is as if one were to raid the King James Bible for phrases and words that one liked the sound of, such as "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" or "Thine house" and throw these together with a modern sensibility while pretending that language has not changed irrevocably in the intervening time.


This is the difficulty with music, and I don't know if it's really worth trying to continue a discussion about the more abstract side of things. I very much disagree with your example, but I'm afraid that I can't really properly explain why.

I'd just say that when someone writes a book, they use words, language, idioms, rules of grammar etc. that they've accumulated over a lifetime and use it to express something that they're trying to say. The thing that they're trying to express is separate from the language itself.

I get the impression that you're prejudging and equating all pastiche composition to creating musical Markov chains, similar to what David Cope did with his Emmy software. I strongly disagree and would suggest that this isn't the case, but I don't really have any solid argument to make against your claim due to the abstract nature of all of this. I would say that it's similar to writing a novel in 2014 with a similar language to the King James Bible. In literature, I would indeed find that questionable due to the language being less accessible to the reader, but due to the abstract nature of music, I can't transpose that argument to music. Hell, the "language" of a Mozart sonata is arguably more accessible to contemporary listeners than a large bulk of contemporary music.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Back to the OP for a moment at least, this comment, taken from an article on composer Ricky Ian Gordon, who has several operas out, as to the variance of his style (Borscht Circuit to contemporary while still quite tonal influences) and about its not being 'the latest avant-garde harmonic language.'
> 
> "Gordon boldly writes exactly what he wants and doesn't give a tuppence what anyone else thinks. *We are all so taken-aback, bowled over by its refreshing effectiveness that we don't give a thought to compositional schools and what is in or out.*" ~ Gregory Sullivan Isaacs
> 
> ...


I'm surprised nobody really thought much of PetrB's above thing here. And Steve, we've already been talking about how the big issue is expression, not innovation. Indeed, there are composers in the late 20th century who have rejected serialism for being unemotional, and rejected non-serialism for being unemotional! In other words, yes, do whatever you want.

Now, let me just say something about beginner composition, your music, etc. Yes, beginners like me try to compose in a common practice tonal style because it's the easiest and it's whats taught in the first music theory textbooks, etc. And we don't know enough to effectively make something truly original. The people who unnecessarily harshly condemned such works on "today's composers" for being pastiche were being overly antagonistic. What they really meant to say was that any beginner should try to expand their technique and voice to better themselves and write more emotional works, that's all.

But now, we have to get to the point of classical music as art. I'd compare the human development of art to an oil spill in an ocean, where the oil spreads every which way. When a composer makes a work of art that expands the oil, that's a good work of art. But... it's not necessary to be so innovative in _technique_ when expanding the oil spill, as long as it's original and polarizing. Indeed, Penderecki went from writing very avant-garde music to writing neo-romantic music, but all the way he was producing worthwhile original works.

Now, here's the point: it's possible you could produce something worthwhile and expand the oil even though you have limited yourself to common practice tonality, but you would have the least chance of doing so. There's nothing _inherently_ wrong with doing so, but it is very limiting, especially with how much we've expanded the oil today.

Let's imagine that Beethoven wrote only four late string quartets. What if someone today wrote something with the same notes as the op 135 F major quartet? It would be a nice piece of music for sure, but it would hardly be that composer's own voice. The point of art is not producing notes on a page that make good music, but to express oneself! It is so so hard to really express that well with common practice tonality compared to what's being done now. And to go back to the oil spill, the spread of the oil spill is representative of expression, not notes or technique, and the range of expression of common practice tonality has pretty much exhausted (don't take my word for it, but think about it compared to what's being done in the last 30 years). After the three B's and everyone around them... I can't imagine expressing much more, but I can easily imagine the best living composers expressing tons more today with what they are doing.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

The guy asked about 'tonal' music in our days... why this has derailed into arguments for and against pastiche composition?

If we understand tonal in a modern way (check Mahlearian's post in the first pages of this thread), yes, you can write all the tonal music you want, it's completely 'allowed'.

In fact, I would say that a lot of the music that is being composed now is in this new 'tonal' style.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> That's a good point. There's a desire to bring something new into existence, but it's rare that any work of art is completely new. If we're going to criticize something based on the fact that it uses older forms and older chord progressions, then isn't it reasonable to suggest that we should also be criticizing its use of something as basic as the twelve tone scale, which is even older and even more "overused"? The specific choice of things that are criticized seems to treat art as being similar to technology, where an innovation occurs, and then a new innovation replaces it because it performs a certain function more adequately. Why is this the case? It doesn't make sense to me. In art, older forms don't become obsolete, they don't become inferior to newer forms. The works of older composers are still thoroughly enjoyed, and not in a nostalgic sense.


Similarly, Shakespeare and Milton are as enjoyable today as they ever were. I have not claimed that musical innovations "replace" older vocabularies and styles. But they add to our vocabulary, and an ostentatiously archaic vocabulary is a completely different thing from a vocabulary that combines elements of new and old together.



StevenOBrien said:


> Let me try to put it another way, then. If it turned out that Beethoven had completed another symphony before his death which had been concealed from us, and it suddenly came to light today, it would likely be revered and held in the highest regard (assuming it was actually a good work that could stand up to the quality of his other symphonies, and not just hyped because of the significance of the composer). Assuming there were no questions about the quality of the work, what would the reaction be if it suddenly came to light twenty years later that it was, in fact, a 21st century forgery by someone who had managed to absorb themselves in Beethoven's style and mindset (I realize it requires a leap of faith)? Would the work still be accepted?


We do have a few examples of musical forgery, in some of the works of Fritz Kreisler, for example, or misattribution, as in the anonymously published Concerti Armonici of Wassenaer that were attributed to Pergolesi (and used by Stravinsky as material for Pulcinella). They may not be particularly frequently performed, but they are not exactly invisible either.

The question is whether someone could take Beethoven's style and actually push it forward, as Beethoven himself would no doubt have wanted to do, or simply reiterate "Beethoven-like" gestures in an attempt to make a point to others. Perhaps the former could be interesting, but I doubt the artistic sincerity of the latter.



StevenOBrien said:


> Here's one example: http://www.talkclassical.com/32609-piano-concerto-d.html#post675446 - They're not difficult to find.


I believe Juergen was saying that the music would have been accepted if it were written back in the Classical era, but today others won't accept it, and he is implying that this is our fault, because real artistic talent is not being encouraged. I disagreed, saying that pastiche Mozart (and the style of the piece draws upon Mozart almost exclusively for its gestures, not simply on the Classical period) did not exist until far later.



StevenOBrien said:


> I should clarify that I'm not suggesting there aren't problems with the content of many of these works, but I think we need to start clarifying what we find disagreeable and figure out how we can best help composers achieve their goals. I don't think that a comment like "You're 250 years too late!" is helpful in any way. A comment like "I see you've taken a lot of inspiration from Mozart's style here. I've listened, and there's a lot of questionable things in the music that don't sound authentic, such as... etc. etc." is much more helpful and constructive.


I wouldn't make such a comment as to say that someone is too late. Unfortunately, being a reactionary is to be of one's time, just completely unhappily. Mozart if he lived in a period other than the Classical era, would have composed in a completely different style.

The problem I have encountered with critiquing compositions that completely ape another composer's style is that we as critics are often taken to task for suggesting that others would do well to expand their scope further.



StevenOBrien said:


> This is the difficulty with music, and I don't know if it's really worth trying to continue a discussion about the more abstract side of things. I very much disagree with your example, but I'm afraid that I can't really properly explain why.
> 
> I'd just say that when someone writes a book, they use words, language, idioms, rules of grammar etc. that they've accumulated over a lifetime and use it to express something that they're trying to say. The thing that they're trying to express is separate from the language itself.


But the exact form of the expression is what we are discussing, not a concept. I would argue, furthermore, that one cannot honestly express "a new Beethoven Symphony" without being Beethoven or even living in Beethoven's era.



StevenOBrien said:


> I get the impression that you're prejudging and equating all pastiche composition to creating musical Markov chains, similar to what David Cope did with his Emmy software. I strongly disagree and would suggest that this isn't the case, but I don't really have any solid argument to make against your claim due to the abstract nature of all of this. I would say that it's similar to writing a novel in 2014 with a similar language to the King James Bible. In literature, I would indeed find that questionable due to the language being less accessible to the reader, but due to the abstract nature of music, I can't transpose that argument to music. Hell, the "language" of a Mozart sonata is arguably more accessible to contemporary listeners than a large bulk of contemporary music.


I don't believe that this is necessarily so, though. Not everyone finds Mozart equally accessible. I am sure that a good many listeners to non-Classical music who are unfamiliar with the Classical era style would find parts of Mozart's music harder to understand than the things with which they are already familiar. It is simply the familiarity of the language that makes it so to many.

I also fail to see the relevance of accessibility to the analogy. Dickens' English and his style are also archaic, and they are quite accessible to the modern reader; I believe the analogy holds just as well there.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

"The question is whether someone could take Beethoven's style and actually push it forward, as Beethoven himself would no doubt have wanted to do, or simply reiterate "Beethoven-like" gestures in an attempt to make a point to others. Perhaps the former could be interesting, but I doubt the artistic sincerity of the latter."

Indeed, Mahlerian, this is it. Let's say Dostoevsky didn't write his last work The Brothers Karamazov. Now, imagine someone today produced it (probably impossible, but let's imagine anyway). How would this be done? Well, he would have to embark on a detailed study of Dostoevsky's moral, political, and spiritual worldview and try to figure out Dostoevsky's personality and mindset. Then, this modern author would have to write something like "that wack Dostoevsky" would have, and even if he succeeded in writing The Brothers Karamazov... ouch! What dishonesty, and what an insult to Dostoevsky! He would much better spend his time, talent, and skills producing something new.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Re: the "new" Beethoven symphony. In purely objective terms, it would be recognized as a good piece. If it was not composed by Beethoven, it will be discarded as obsolete and derivative, since the composer just copied the personality of another composer (and with Beethoven that's quite easy, since it's one of the most analyzed composers...). I wouldn't even call this guy "a composer"...

If it's a Beethoven original, it will be praised and added to the core repertoire.

The important point here is that, while the piece may be the same (although that already is questionable), the compositional process is not. And in art, the composer, and his personality, behind the piece was and is a very important part of the process.

If you composed a very good piece in the sytle of Beethoven, you may think it's unfair if we don't care very much about your piece. The thing is that _we_ are the ones thinking it's unfair if you are there saying that you just "composed" something: you didn't, you just copied the style of one of the most studied and analysed composers in history. That's not art making. The "achievement", from an artistic point of view, is similar to this (robot hand plays Coltrane solo). It's a technical achievement, not an artistic one. You will not be taken seriously as an artist because you are missing half of the process (the most important half).

I really can't explain it to you in more clearer terms than that. If you insist in copying the personality of others, I would suggest a psychiatrist then.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

aleazk said:


> If it was not composed by Beethoven, it will be discarded as obsolete and derivative, since the composer just copied the personality of another composer (and with Beethoven that's quite easy, since it's one of the most analyzed composers...). I wouldn't even call this guy "a composer"...


If somebody can write another Pastoral, more power to 'em! Of course it won't happen because there aren't any Beethovens floating around right now. It's not a matter of copying a style or a "personality" -- it's a matter of the quality of ideas, the sheer intelligence that goes into the structure and development, the ability to write music that is wholly original in concept but communicates clearly and directly.

This reminds me of a conversation with a friend some years ago. He was a fan of visual art, and couldn't understand why somebody didn't simply "forge" a Beethoven symphony like a painting of some master. It was very hard to explain as I remember!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Of course it won't happen because there aren't any Beethovens floating around right now. It's not a matter of copying a style or a "personality" -- it's a matter of the quality of ideas, the sheer intelligence that goes into the structure and development, the ability to write music that is wholly original in concept but communicates clearly and directly.


Beethoven was a genius, sure, but he was a human being also. So, from a purely statistical viewpoint, your claim is incorrect.

The truth is that there were, are, and will be many Beethovens, Einsteins, etc.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

aleazk said:


> The truth is that there were, are, and will be many Beethovens, Einsteins, etc.


You miss my point. There may be others with as much talent and skill (or more!) than Beethoven, but there's only one Beethoven.

If somebody were to create a "new" substantial and convincing mature Beethoven symphony, he/she would have to be as great a composer as Beethoven.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> ...there aren't any Beethovens floating around right now. It's not a matter of copying a style or a "personality" -- it's a matter of the quality of ideas, the sheer intelligence that goes into the structure and development, the ability to write music that is wholly original in concept but communicates clearly and directly."


The construct is completely bogus: (I know it was not yours) i.e. "quality of ideas, intelligence that goes into structure and development, the ability to write music that is wholly original in concept but communicates clearly and directly" is fine enough, while it could as equally apply to any number of later composers and their "symphonies" or other large orchestral works.
Schubert / Mahler / Stravinsky / Debussy / Berio, etc. etc. etc.

Anyone with the talents required as listed above are also the same ones who would be the least likely to have as petty pedant an interest in sitting down and so literally, 'writing Beethoven's tenth.' which is where the premise sits on a chasm of a massive fault line of continental dimensions


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Anyone with the talents required as listed above are also the same ones who would be the least likely to have as petty pedant an interest in sitting down and so literally, 'writing Beethoven's tenth.' which is where the premise sits on a chasm of a massive fault line of continental dimensions


Which is not relevant to my argument at all. I might add that the pejoratives are not really necessary.



PetrB said:


> ...while it could as equally apply to any number of later composers and their "symphonies" or other large orchestral works. Schubert / Mahler / Stravinsky / Debussy / Berio, etc. etc. etc.


Well, it's only an opinion certainly, but a widely shared one that Beethoven is one of the two greatest artists in modern history (Shakespeare being the other). I doubt the composers you mention fall into the same class, no offense to them! None of them could, with the best will in the world, "pass for Beethoven."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Which is not relevant to my argument at all. I might add that the pejoratives are not really necessary.


Well if they are pejorative, it is a reaction in my thinking much of any time spent upon such a premise is a sad waste of said time.

Best regards.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Well if they are pejorative, it is a reaction in my thinking much of any time spent upon such a premise is a sad waste of said time.
> 
> Best regards.


Oh, SNAP! *********


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> If we're going to criticize something based on the fact that it uses older forms and older chord progressions, then isn't it reasonable to suggest that we should also be criticizing its use of something as basic as the twelve tone scale, which is even older and even more "overused"? The specific choice of things that are criticized seems to treat art as being similar to technology, where an innovation occurs, and then a new innovation replaces it because it performs a certain function more adequately. Why is this the case? It doesn't make sense to me. In art, older forms don't become obsolete, they don't become inferior to newer forms. The works of older composers are still thoroughly enjoyed, and not in a nostalgic sense.


In music, there is, I feel, a tendency to look at it as an evolutionary process. For instance, Wagner as an evolution of Beethoven, Schoenberg as an evolution of Wagner, others as an evolution of Schoenberg etc. A process of more and further, almost in an adventurous ways, daring more, going further. Indeed similar to science, where new knowledge does not add to but replaces the previous stage of knowledge.
What movies of the last 30 or 40 years actually went beyond what Citizen Kane or Breathless or 2001 A Space Odyssey had already achieved? What writers have advanced the novel beyond what James Joyce had done? And it is not expected of any director or writer to innovate and change the form of their respective medium.
Personally, I'd see The Future of Music in a) keeping up with technology and b) combining audio and visual elements. I think Scriabin had already intended a work of his to be accompanied by a kind of light show. Some years ago I went to hear a performance of Pärt's Passio that was accompanied by a presentation of a number of semi-abstract images, slowly dissoving into each other. I think in the age of the video clip, and now Youtube, the cultural sensibility might slowy move into a direction where the entanglement of music and visuals becomes the norm. That is, where concert performances might have to offer more than just the sight of 50 to 100 people in dark suits playing their instruments. Not talking opera-style stage performances here, but composers conceiving their music as part of a performance. Nono and Schnittke used players that moved about on the stage while they were playing. Video is another possibility. (Kraftwerk live gigs use this very well.) All conceived by the composer, or in collaboration with a visual artist.
This shouldn't mean that concerts must become Events or Happenings. This is not designed to reduce the importance of music or to give it training wheels. It's just a suggestion.


----------

