# What should composers actually compose?



## Edward Elgar

There seems to be a branch in contemporary classical music. On one there are the atonal composers carrying on from what Shozzy started and on the other there are the tonal composers like Einaudi. Which one is acceptable, or more importantly, which do you prefer?


----------



## IAmKing

Both are acceptable. A composer should compose what he/she wants hear.

Which do I prefer? Either, or neither. Depends how good it is.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

It depends what a composers goals are. If he wants to make a living and be famous, film and television music are the way to go.

If he writes truly what he "wants to hear", he may be relegating himself to eternal obscurity, because there is no demand for new works for the sake of art.

A good compromise is to compose small scale works for solo instruments, in whatever idiom you choose. Take Hindemith for example. He wrote sonatas, sometimes several, for every single wind instrument, and they are played by hundreds of conservatory and university students every year.


----------



## Mahler Maniac

I think a composer should compose from their heart, create something they truly love...and not be limited to a certain style or practice


----------



## Topaz

I wasn't aware that Shostakovich wrote any, or much, atonal music. He wrote mainly in neo-chromatic style. Atonal music was started by the Second Vienese School (Shoenberg et al): "just a load of notes bunged together", as suggested by one poster here recently.

As for what style modern composers should write, if they want to make a living they should write in the style for which there is a demand and for which they have a comparative advantage. Pretty obviously there's no point writing in a style for which for which there is no demand, or for which they have no comparative advantage. 

I would have thought that the biggest demand these days is for film and other incidental music, which is mainly tonal.


----------



## IAmKing

"if they want to make a living"

But surely, that should not at all be the primary motive behind a composer's work?


----------



## Topaz

Both Kurkikohtaus and I have made the same point.

If composers simply write material they like or which they are good at, regardless of what the market wants, the resulting works may not be successful. If so, neither the composer nor audience will be satisfied. 

A necessary condition for a good composer is that they meet their audiences' requirements, and maybe lead them to some extent. But he may not be successful. A sufficient condition for a successful composer is one who is/was very good at composing the type of music that audiences wanted. 


Topaz


----------



## rojo

Composing today is surely not like it once was, but I can`t help thinking of all those composers, famous now, but who were neglected, underappreciated, often poor, sometimes even having their works booed... Composers such as Schubert. Here`s a quote from wikipedia about him - 'Yet, during his lifetime, public appreciation for his work was for the most part, limited at best. He was also never able to secure adequate permanent employment and for the majority of his career, relied on the support of friends and family. However, interest in Schubert's work increased dramatically following his death in 1828.'

Some composers suffered for their art...

Anyway, I think people who are mostly interested in being famous and successful go into some line of work other than composing, maybe music oriented but certainly in some other genre than classical, because the really big payoffs these days are not in classical. Unless perhaps if one counts John Williams as a classical composer...

Am I naive in thinking that composers mainly compose to express something (an idea?) Some of them surely do. If so, the composer is surely the only one who knows how he/she should express it. I don`t know how many, nor which concern themselves with other issues, nor which issues; there are surely many issues involved, some maybe to a greater extent than others.

As to atonal vs tonal, I can only judge by my own personal taste. I like composers who stray as far as possible from tonality without losing it entirely. Generalizing there, but that`s what I tend to like the most from composers.

Btw, the one work I heard by Einaudi consisted of the same four chords, broken, on the piano. I`m afraid I got bored, and did not finish listening to it. Maybe I`d like some of his other works better, I don`t know. Maybe he`s a minimalist...


----------



## Topaz

Not that "rojo" was actually saying this, but any suggestion that *Schubert* was some kind of recluse who simply did his own thing is plain wrong. You have to read a bit more than a quote or two from Wikipedia to get the correct picture.


The experience of Schubert fits exactly the description I gave: he composed the kind of music he was good at, and for which there was a demand. He had a particular gift for song-writing and melody, and some of his greatest admirers were singers for whom he wrote a lot of material to meet that demand (lieder). He also wrote three symphonies by the age of 19, and completed the fourth shortly after. So any notion that he only wrote music to please himself is complete nonsense. Moreover, no-one is saying this formula for writing music will lead to guaranteed or instantatenous success.

Although he was generally content with modest public success, there is evidence that he was occasionally disappointed that he did not enjoy rather more. He sometimes used to get very depressed about the lack of it, especially over the failures of several operas due to poor librettos.

 Remember too that Schubert's life was very short. He died at 31. His composing career (about 13 years) is by far the shortest on record among any of the greats. If he had lived a few years longer (after the memory of Beethoven had died down) it's likely his reputation would have grown considerably in his own lifetime.

He also lived in the shadow of the great Beethoven - who enjoyed a strong reputation - for most of his life, which must have had a negative effect on anyone else's reputation. 
In addition, Schubert knew about 5 years before he died that he had an incurable disease from which he would eventually die at an early age. This must have affected his outlook, so the usual motives of seeking lifetime fame and glory were, to say the least, less striking in poor Schubert's case.
In other words, I don't think the case of Schubert affects the validity of my view at all. On the contrary, it is fully consistent with it. Indeed, I would not have written it were it not for this and other similar examples of successful composers.

Topaz


----------



## rojo

Good thing for us Schubert didn`t switch profession in search of more success and fortune!


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

A few posts ago, *Topaz* wrote:


Topaz said:


> I wasn't aware that Shostakovich wrote any, or much, atonal music.


 I didn't remember what exactly he was reacting to, so I went to the original post and discovered the sentance that I must have missed the first time.



Edward Elgar said:


> ... carrying on from what Shozzy started ...


This is a little bit off-topic, but I simply cannot NOT react to that statement. Shostakovich is one of the few "major" composers in history who started absolutely nothing. I can't think of a single thing that Shostakovich "invented" or even "furthered". I'm not saying that he is *un-original*, as his melodies, themes and sounds all bear a very deep _Shostakovichian_ stamp, but the *tools* that he used to create his pieces are all borrowed... no, that sounds derogatory... his tools are _inherited_ from earlier traditions. This is not in any way a bad thing, but on the other hand, one should not say that Shostakovich started anything.

His orchestration stems from *Korsakov* and *Tchaikovsky*, but is much less "advanced" and original than *Strauss* and *Mahler*...

His harmonic language is a feeble echo of the "Tonal Pan-Chromaticism" introduced by *Wagner* and *Strauss* and developped to the extreme by *Stravinsky*...

His forms are based on Classical conventions, but he does nothing towards the unification that *Sibelius* and even *Beethoven* sought for...

What Shostakovich did was take a little bit of this and a little bit of that and mixed it all together in a big loud bang that we hear as the "original" Shostakovich that we know and love...

But he didn't start anything.


----------



## Topaz

rojo said:


> Good thing for us Schubert didn`t switch profession in search of more success and fortune!


I take your point but I don't think he would have succeeded, even if he had felt obliged to try something else.

He first trained as a schoolteacher but spent only 2 miserable years at it.

His formal training as a musician was limited. I should have added that at the age of 18 he had also composed two Masses, the second of which (D 167) was a staple of the R.C. Liturgy for much of the 19th C. Also, one of his most famous songs, "Erlkonig", was written when he was 18. Thus, by his 20th birthday he had composed some 500 musical works including these 2 Masses, 5 operas, several sonatas, a wealth of Lieder, several string quartets, and five symphonies!

Not surprisingly, by the age 21 he had in fact achieved some notoriety among Viennese musicians, so much so that he was proposed as the music teacher to the noble Esterházy family. He gave piano lessons to the two daughters. But he didn't last long there, and returned to Vienna after a few months to resume composition. All the time he knew his real calling.

Fortunately, Schubert kept at it for many years after he discovered his incurable disease in 1823, even though knowledge of the inevitable result made him depressed, and ultimately very inward-looking. He only found solace in his music and among his friends. It was this disease that killed him in late 1828, but the story is that he didn't really believe that the end would be that quick as he was, in his last few weeks, looking forward to making a recovery and improving his knowlege of counterpoint.

His "opportunity cost" - i.e. what he could have earned in his next best occupation - was probably quite low too, as he would never have been happy. This often happens with very highly gifted artistic people, namely outside of their chosen career they are like fish out of water relatively.

Topaz


----------



## Topaz

Kurkikohtaus said:


> [snipped] ... What Shostakovich did was take a little bit of this and a little bit of that and mixed it all together in a big loud bang that we hear as the "original" Shostakovich that we know and love...
> 
> But he didn't start anything.


Agreed: In general, Shostakovich is just about the least innovative, and least influential major composer there is. He has, however, been credited - if that is the right word - for having some influence on Schnittke.

I have just listened to the Viola Concerto of Schnittke. It's the first piece I have had the courage to listen to. I just knew somehow I wouldn't like it, but I approached with it weaing my post positive hat. I found it disappointing: dark, depressing, lacking in anything meaningful, meandering, pointless. A bit of a nightmare actually.

So, if Shotakovich had any influence on this, he has gone down even further in my estimation. To me, a lot of Shostakovich's material sounds like cheap B Movie soundtrack, even including chunks of his so-called greatest works like S5. I agree some of his works are OK, but most of the symphonies contain too much mixed material. I always find the "whole" disappointing: either too long in general, too disjointed, or just plain boring. I'm not denying his greatness or brilliance; just that he doesn't work for me in creating a strong impression, only a moderate one.

To me, the last decent (I won't say "great") symphonist was RvW. The last great one was Sibelius. I think we've now had it! Make the most of what we have. Back to Haydn? Not for me. Mozart S 29 et seq.

Topaz


----------



## rojo

Topaz said:


> I take your point but I don't think he would have succeeded, even if he had felt obliged to try something else.


I don`t really find it matters whether he (Schubert) would have succeeded with something else or not, although it may be amusing to speculate. I could be wrong, but I don`t think he composed in order to be successful. Maybe he composed simply because that`s what he wanted to do as opposed to anything else. I could have used other composers as examples as well, or instead, I suppose.

Maybe Elgar could have chosen better representatives of tonal and atonal music composers, but I read his question as meaning- which do you prefer, tonal or atonal compositions.

Probably composers all have their own reason, or reasons for composing. And reasons for how they choose to compose, be it tonal, atonal, or whatever.

There were many composers who were not successful, perhaps even misunderstood in their own time, but who are celebrated as brilliant and/or revolutionary now. I think I`m trying to say that some composers composed simply because that is what they wanted to do. I don`t know how many of them were concerned with fame, fortune or success, nor to what extent. Were some of these composers composing for a future audience? Who knows. Maybe. Perhaps today`s composers compose for the same reasons, or other reasons. It probably varies from one composer to the next.


Kurkikohtaus said:


> What Shostakovich did was take a little bit of this and a little bit of that and mixed it all together in a big loud bang that we hear as the "original" Shostakovich that we know and love...


I find this comment to be rather generalized; I have heard works by him that I would not describe as being stuff mixed together in a big loud bang.


----------



## Topaz

Trying to bring this back to the original question, on reflection I think it's irrelevant what motives individual modern (classical) composers may have for choosing the style in which to write. They can be varied and we needn't speculate further as it won't get us anywhere in deciding the most likely future path of preferred music from this specific modern era. This will not be determined by what composers want to write but ultimately by what the public wants to hear. I think generally that supply doesn't create its own demand. It's usually the consumer who is sovereign, and suppliers follow.

Only those composers who, for whatever reason, select the "correct" market-determined style and produce good work will succeed. It's up to them whether they wish to succeed, and obviously whether they have the capacity to succeed by their own abilities. Still just looking at music from the present era, I don't reckon atonal music (or mainly atonal music) will become the predominant form. There is no sign of it from my observations of current trends.

As for the future focus of all classical music (i.e. across all eras and not just this one) it depends on how far into the future we are speculating. In the near future (say next 10-20 years) my money would be on a continuation of the present focus on the period 1750-1950. Hence, it matters very little indeed what type of music the present set of composers produce, as only relatively few customers will be listening to it anyway. Longer term (20-50 years) it's more difficult to guess but I still can't this centre of gravity shifting forward in time by very much. It may stretch a bit to embrace some of the post 1950 period, but the latter will still remain the tail end of the overall market in terms of vintage and size. In other words, however it is looked at, I see the contribution of atonal music remaining marginal for many moons yet. I may be wrong, but I think this addresses the main question in the first post of this thread.

Topaz


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Topaz said:


> This will not be determined by what composers want to write but ultimately by what the public wants to hear. I think generally that supply doesn't create its own demand. It's usually the consumer who is sovereign, and suppliers follow.


I will state a very strange parallel, but it leapt immediately to mind so why not...

The abovestated formula of *demand-driving-supply* is a reccuring theme communicated by *William Burroughs*, author of the _once-banned-in-the-US_ book *The Naked Lunch*. A reformed heroin addict, Burroughs supports the opinion that coming down on the supplier (at any level, be it the petty street pusher or the international cartel) is pointless. As long as there is a demand on the street, that demand will be met. What should be done to solve the urban heroin problem is a massive grass-roots campaign to help the user kick the habit and educate young people preventively.

_If you have seen the screen adaptation of *Naked Lunch*, don't look for this message there... as abstract as the movie is, it is very concrete compared to the random musings of the plot-less book._

To bring the parallel full-circle, if a composer composes music with *no intended audience*, he may find a few interested listeners, but is very unlikely to cause a stir, or create a new need, if you will. For a composer to be relevant (not necessarily commercially successful, mind you, just _relevant_), he must have an intended audience. Whether that audience consists of the countless masses that devour minimalism or of 37 serial-music enthusiasts of the local Webern Society, the intended audience is just as important as the composer's initial spark of inspiration.


----------



## Topaz

*WHERE IS CLASSICAL MUSIC HEADED?*

I see that this topic could indeed be broadened slightly to ask "where is classical music is headed?" 

To answer this, care must be exercised in definitions. Are we talking about the new contributions to classical music by current composers, including budding new ones? Alternatively, are we talking about the overall listening patterns of the generality of current and future classical music lovers? There is a big difference, as clearly the contributions of composers in the first group could feasibly change significantly from the type of music composed by earlier composers. Yet any such change may make hardly difference to the overall listening patterns of classical fans over the next few decades. To take an extreme illustrative example, it is possible to imagine every single piece of classical music composed from now on being in the form, say, of Zappa/Zorn. Even if this were the case, it is most unlikely that this marginal supply would have hardly impact what we actually listen to, as the average changes only very slowly with respect to changes at the margin.

I make this warning because I can quite easily see the possibility emerging of people forecasting the occurrence of big "changes" ahead, without considering the marginal versus average distinction.

I reckon if we go back say 50 years the kind of classical music most people were listening to then is much the same as it is now, with the centre of the age distribution being about 1790-1820, tapering off both sides slowly (plus and minus about 100 years) to form an approximate bell shape curve . In the present day this "curve" may have widened somewhat to encompass a few more modern composers (Shostakovich, etc) but I bet the modal point has not shifted forward by more than say 10 years at most. In other words, I strongly suspect that the average age of music we are listening to is getting older on average as time passes.

This might prompt the question "won't people get fed up listening to the same old stuff?" I do not think they will for two reasons: (i) People themselves are changing, as we all eventually go to meet our maker, or wherever else. There is no reason to believe that future generations will not like Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms etc any less than we do. (ii) Even if there is some tiring of the music of these titans, I think it more likely that people will seek out supplementary material of various lesser-known contemporaries and disciples, rather than switch to much more modern alternatives in a wholesale manner. For example, as we know, there appears to be a growing interest in various high quality - but lesser well-known - 19th century piano composers like Alkan and Thalberg.

These are only personal hunches, based on casual observation. I have no magic source of data on all this to back it up with. All I have is a pretty good idea about what classical pieces are generally considered "good" or "great". I also know what kind of CDs fill the classical music shelves. I watch the concert market at least in the UK, and I listen to radio a lot (both Classic FM and Radio 3), so I know what's popular. Based on this set of information, backed up by some very limited historical research on past listening habits, I reckon my statements above are broadly correct.

If we can project forward past trends, I reckon classical music is headed nowhere fast in terms of significant changes in genre type likely to be most favoured in the forseeable future. The modal point may move forward a bit but I don't think by very much. There may be some broadening of the curve, and a possible skewing towards the present as Baroque may decline at a faster rate than the growth of some 20th century novelties, but this is highly speculative.

With a few exceptions, I say this thankfully because I am not enamoured of many modern trends. The music of Cage, to me, is awful. Boulez's music grates. Schnitkke's works (what little I have heard) are too depressing for words, and involve too much a of curious mixture of tonal/atonal passages. Zappa/Zorn is not my scene. Eunaudi is too simplistic. I fully admit I have not sampled much of any of this, but I have sampled enough to know it is most unlikely to be for me. There is ample earlier material to keep me fully satified. I confess to being a dyed-in-the wool late Classical/Romantic, and likely always will be. I am perfectly happy listening to more modern versions (e.g. Elgar, Sibelius, and Respighi) but that is about as far as I go. To bring me up-to-date, I prefer conventional Rock to these modern "classical" manifestations.

Lastly, none of this is in any way intended as criticism of other people's tastes. My own tastes have shifted around a fair bit over time. Their views are as worthy as anyone else's. It's just that I think those of my persuasion would probably outvote others in any overall assessment, as I reckon about 90% of the classical music public is with me on this.

Topaz


----------



## IAmKing

"Schnitkke’s works (what little I have heard) are too depressing for words"

Never heard of him. I'm intrigued now. 

Nice post Topaz. A lot of what you say makes sense. Although I think that in this day and age, where any composer can instantly make his work widely available through the use of the internet, the modern and avant-garde classical scene with regards to composers such as Zorn and Zappa and all the many other composers in the same box as them (Mark Applebaum, Eyvind Kang, etc.) are able to compose what they want (Tzadik, Zorn's label, lets the artists it signs do what the hell they want to do, pretty much). These composers are also able to get a fair bit of an audience. I know many aficionados (is that the right word?) of the Tzadik and similar labels who will buy and listen to anything new and original. 

This is very different to the 'classical' classical scene, which has stopped, in my opinion. 1790-1820, as you said, although I'd extend it a wee bit in both directions, is where its at.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Topaz said:


> I reckon if we go back say 50 years the kind of classical music most people were listening to then is much the same as it is now, with the centre of the age distribution being about *1790-1820*, tapering off both sides slowly (plus and minus about 100 years) to form an approximate bell shape curve.


Topaz, do you mean *1920*?

Your point about the next generations liking the Classical/Romantic "standards" as much as we do is a good one. If people had an average life-extpectancy of around 200 years, we would probably see a much greater demand for new works. However, most people have a _"Classical Music Listening Span"_ of about 50 years. A decade of exploration to find one's taste, another decade or two of deepening one's knowledge in their selected areas of preference, and then a _lasting enjoyment_ of the works that you love.

And then death.


----------



## Topaz

*K... *I do mean 1820. You may have missed the important word "centre". I am being perhaps mathematically too precise and have inadvertently caused confusion. I realise that interest is much wider than 1790-1820. I'm just saying this is the centre point with interest tapering off either side. OK? I know this because I have done a simple analysis looking at the top 40 composers and working out the time periods over which they composed their works. The average is 1790-1820.

Topaz


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Hmm....

1820 sounds way to early to talk about a "tapering off" of interest. Certainly this era of Haydn-Mozart-Beethoven is very important, but it seems to me that the core of the orchestral repertoire must include Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Bruckner, Mahler, Strauss...

Perhaps I'm being over-_qualitative_, but I think that is the point with music. To say that interest "tapers off" after 1820 is a little misrepresentative.


----------



## Oneiros

Ack... I never thought I'd see economic analysis applied to classical music.  

Seriously, what happened to composing what you feel? To not caring about what the public want to hear... to composing from within... to being drawn forward by lofty aesthetic ideals alone... This has created some of the best artists ever.

Also I don't think that money or popularity has anything to do with being a successful composer... Real success comes from within, when one is satisfied with what one creates. As long as the composer develops and refines his inner musical tastes, superficial successes (money and fame) would most likely follow. However, to make these the motivating factor in musical creation makes what a composer thinks about his/her work irrelevant, and what would most likely result is pandering to public tastes.

As for the original question, I prefer (and compose) tonal music, though I haven't heard enough atonal/chromatic music to judge it, so my choice is fairly biased.


----------



## Topaz

*Kurkikohtaus: * You are correct. Moreover, so am I, in a way. Get your yourself a drink first (a bit of statistics coming up)!

*Stage 1*

First, I looked at the top 10 composers as posted on another music site. (All the big names are there, even though the rank order can be debated). I then worked out the approximate periods over which they composed, and then worked out the average start and finish dates. The average start date was 1800 and the average finish date was 1840, the mid point being 1820. *N.B.* This is what I mean by a central point. The tapering off both sides of 1820 is quite shallow, not sharp, as you seemed to have inferred. The "curve" obviously embraces the likes of Bach and Brahms.

Secondly, I extended this to the top 20, top 30, top 40 from the same site. The mid points for these groups were: 1836, 1844, 1841 respectively.

Third, I refined all this by putting in a weighting system, so that the top composers got a progressively higher weight than those further down the list. This reduced the mid points as follows: top 10 = 1818, top 20 = 1832, top 30 = 1838, top 40 = 1835. The weighting system was geometric and applied a shallow tapering off in quality from the start position in which Beethoven is No 1, Mozart No 2, Bach No 3 etc. By composer rank No 40, there is still quite a high weight. The results here were not that sensitive to choice of weighting.

*Stage 2*

The above approach is OK as far as it goes, but it does not allow for the fact that often a large percentage of composers' works are hardly ever heard. It is all very well saying Beethoven, Mozart, Bach are the greatest, but how many of their works ever get played? In some cases it's often quite a low number, at least on a regular basis.

Therefore, what I did next was look at the dates of composition of the most popular works of all composers. I took the Classic FM Hall of Fame list. This contains the top 300, but it is a very tedious exercise to go through the lot, and I confined my calculations to the top 60. I found the simple average date of composition is 1856. The "standard error" is 75, which means that approximately some two-thirds of all works were composed between about 1781 and 1930. The age distribution is slightly skewed to the right, which makes this range slightly inaccurate.

Again, I refined this analysis by putting in an arbitrary weighting system to reflect strength of preference, with the higher rated works getting a higher score. This resulted in a slight increase in the average age of composition to 1860, but again the results were not not sensitive with respect to choice of weights.

This means that in terms of popularity based on British tastes (as measured no doubt imperfectly by the CFM list) the average age of preferred compositions is some 25 years more recent than that suggested by the composers' list, i.e. 1860 vis-a-vis 1835.

*Conclusion*

Both approaches have some validity, but I reckon the second is probably better.

The stage 2 results may appear to be based on a small sample (60), but I was amazed how stable the results were as more pieces were added. I realise, of course, that they are UK-biased, but I would be surprised if similar results for other countries would differ by more than about 10-15 years either way of 1860.

All these calculations have been done very quickly indeed just for the purpose of this thread, and the results are subject to possible correction and revision. I can assure you it's not part of any "magnum opus", or anything like that. Anyone should be able to replicate my results, especially those from stage 2. Basically, it confirms what I already knew instinctively. I am setting out the facts here in case anyone thinks I'm making it all up that classical music tastes are firmly *centred* about 140-170 years ago, spanning up to about 1935 in the majority of cases.

Thus, talk of modern or contemporary music (all umpteen varieties of it ) is fine and interesting provided its marginal relevance, in terms of overall tastes and listening preferences, is recognised.

I hope all is clear.

Topaz


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Clear as the sparkling waters of the Thames.

Just kidding, well done on that analysis, Topaz, but I do think I shall have another drink.


----------



## ElgarJim

The concept of music that does not sound good is a contradiction that has it's inevitable appeal. Still I don't understand why so many composers still choose to write this way 100 years later - then wonder why they cannot get their music performed. Much damage has been done to the reputation of modern music. It will take a lot to fix this.

Jim.

http://orchestralmusician.blogspot.com/


----------



## Comus

In order for a piece of music to even exist intrinsically as art the composer must not take any but musical considerations into account. Public taste should not influence the artist. Those composers that are "true," for lack of a less romantic term, are all artists; however, not all composers are artists. 

The question of tonality/atonality is pointless in the context of art. That is a purely aesthetic matter pertaining to social norms and taste. I find much of Schoenberg's and Alban Berg's music absolutely beautiful and much of it not. What is important is what the artist aims to express. Musical ideas must be given justice. If you have an idea that can only be accommodated through tonal music, then tonal music you must write. If it requires serialism, then you must use serial procedures. And so on with minimalism, etc. Perhaps your ideas cannot be properly expressed through any existing styles. Now, you must create a new style. It would probably be superfluous to harmonize a simple melody in F major with 12-tone clusters, but if you can justify it somehow then by all means do so if necessary.

Schoenberg himself said there were still plenty of great works to be written in C major.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

In order for a piece of music to even exist intrinsically as art the composer must not take any but musical considerations into account. Public taste should not influence the artist. Those composers that are "true," for lack of a less romantic term, are all artists; however, not all composers are artists. 

You're 15, right? If not, you are hopelessly deluded about what art is and how artist create. Art is a dialog. There is a presumption of an audience. Not all art is aimed for the same audience. Clearly James Joyce was not so naive to imagine that the casual reader would ever be thumbing through Finnegan's Wake. By the same token, it is doubtful that J.K. Rowling was overly concerned about the opinions of literary critics and those who read "serious" literature. But art is created with an audience in mind... even if the artist only imagines an audience like himself or herself.

If we look at J.S. Bach... whom few would accuse of having "sold out" we will discover that nearly every work in his entire oeuvre was created with an audience and/or utilitarian purpose in mind. The cantatas and many of the organ works were composed for liturgical purposes to meet the demands of his position as Cantor at Leipzig. His cello suites, suites for unaccompanied violin, orchestral suites, and other instrumental pieces were composed as entertainment... to meet the demands of Prince Leopold at Kothen. The Brandenburg Concertos were composed as something of a resume in seeking employment from Christian Ludwig, margrave of Brandenburg. The Kyrie and Gloria of the Mass in B Minor were presented the manuscript to the King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania and Elector of Saxony, August III in an ultimately successful bid to persuade the monarch to appoint him as Royal Court Composer. A great deal of Bach's works for solo keyboard were written for pedagogical purposes.

The idea of the artist completely impervious to the needs of wants of the audience or the marketplace is a Romantic fantasy. The artist must earn a living as much as anyone else and there is no truth to the notion that "selling out"... meeting the public demands... immediately results in artistic decline. Shakespeare is a clear case in point. Haydn, Handel, Stravinsky, Richard Strauss, and many other great composers were quite successful. Others, such as Schubert, simply died too young... yet even then... not without an audience of loyal followers.


----------



## Argus

ElgarJim said:


> The concept of *music that does not sound good *is a contradiction that has it's inevitable appeal. Still I don't understand why so many composers still choose to write this way 100 years later - then wonder why they cannot get their music performed. Much damage has been done to the reputation of modern music. It will take a lot to fix this.


What objective criteria defines whether music sounds good or bad?



Comus said:


> In order for a piece of music to even exist intrinsically as art the composer must not take any but musical considerations into account. Public taste should not influence the artist. Those composers that are "true," for lack of a less romantic term, are all artists; however, not all composers are artists.


I believe all composers are artists. Can you name some that aren't?



Stlukes said:


> The idea of the artist completely impervious to the needs of wants of the audience or the marketplace is a Romantic fantasy. The artist must earn a living as much as anyone else and there is no truth to the notion that "selling out"... meeting the public demands... immediately results in artistic decline. Shakespeare is a clear case in point. Haydn, Handel, Stravinsky, Richard Strauss, and many other great composers were quite successful. Others, such as Schubert, simply died too young... yet even then... not without an audience of loyal followers.


Why does professionalism matter?

Reich and Glass both had day jobs like driving taxis and plumbing to pay the bills whilst they composed and organised performances of their work. Most of the early Delta bluesmen worked as cotton pickers or farmhands before they gained enough recognition to become full time musicians. Borodin was a chemist, Gesualdo was a wealthy aristocrat, Mahler made his money mainly from conducting. Then there's a plethora of composers whose main source of income was teaching at universities and institutes.

I'm just saying it's not as black and white as you portray it. If an artist tries to make a living from his art, then what you say about him having to take the audience into account makes sense. However, an artist can pursue his own path and neglect the wants of the audience, if he is prepared to not make any kind of living out of it and finance himself in other ways.

But there is no need for compromise sometimes anyway. I doubt Schoenberg did anything other than what he wanted with his art, yet he found a living from it. Same goes for plenty of the more successful avant garde folks, not to mention a selection of musicians from other genres.

Who's to say whats the most noble action. Working 8 hours a day doing something you don't want to do so you can create your art the exact way you want to, or using all that time towards your art, even though it most probably will be compromised by the audiences/'customers' influence.

Finally, what about van Gogh?


----------



## Comus

StlukesguildOhio said:


> You're 15, right? If not, you are hopelessly deluded about what art is and how artist create. Art is a dialog. There is a presumption of an audience. Not all art is aimed for the same audience. Clearly James Joyce was not so naive to imagine that the casual reader would ever be thumbing through Finnegan's Wake. By the same token, it is doubtful that J.K. Rowling was overly concerned about the opinions of literary critics and those who read "serious" literature. But art is created with an audience in mind... even if the artist only imagines an audience like himself or herself.




Very well. I concede my point and withold the further passing of my opinion.
By the way I am 15 and a _half_, thank you very much, therefore, several months your senior.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Why does professionalism matter?

Reich and Glass both had day jobs like driving taxis and plumbing to pay the bills whilst they composed and organised performances of their work. Most of the early Delta bluesmen worked as cotton pickers or farmhands before they gained enough recognition to become full time musicians. Borodin was a chemist, Gesualdo was a wealthy aristocrat, Mahler made his money mainly from conducting. Then there's a plethora of composers whose main source of income was teaching at universities and institutes.

I'm just saying it's not as black and white as you portray it. If an artist tries to make a living from his art, then what you say about him having to take the audience into account makes sense. However, an artist can pursue his own path and neglect the wants of the audience, if he is prepared to not make any kind of living out of it and finance himself in other ways.

But there is no need for compromise sometimes anyway. I doubt Schoenberg did anything other than what he wanted with his art, yet he found a living from it. Same goes for plenty of the more successful avant garde folks, not to mention a selection of musicians from other genres.

Who's to say whats the most noble action. Working 8 hours a day doing something you don't want to do so you can create your art the exact way you want to, or using all that time towards your art, even though it most probably will be compromised by the audiences/'customers' influence.

Finally, what about van Gogh?

Yes... the artist can always elect to support himself or herself through a day job... but this takes away from the time and the energy he or she has to actually work as an artist. What you gain in terms of freedom to create without the least concern for the need to appeal to an audience, you lose in actual time spent creating at all. I speak to this from experience as an artist with a day job.

Largely, I am of the belief that an artist should do that which he or she believes in and values with the knowledge that there is an audience for almost anything... the challenge is to discover that audience. I have no use, however, for the supposition that the artist whose work appeals to an audience... or who takes the audience into consideration... is somehow inferior and his or her work assuredly inferior to the artist who has no thoughts of the audience.

It might also be admitted that the path an artist chooses is not something as simple as a choice between being the proverbial "starving artist" yet true to one's work vs that of being rich and successful... yet having to kowtow to public taste. If being popular and successful were easy, I don't doubt many more would elect to take such a path. Many of the most revolutionary artists imagined that their work would be far more immediately successful in financial and populist terms. Returning to your bluesmen, B.B. King admitted that when he sang gospel people praised him to the heavens, but when he played the blues people gave him money... and thus he quickly chose to play the blues. Van Gogh? He undoubtedly would have done as well financially as did most of the Impressionists before him... had he not died so young. He only had some 5 years of truly mature work.


----------



## Guidepost 42

It probably depends, at least to some extent, on what the composer wants to accomplish. If the objective is "high art" designed only for the amusment of the compsoer,thats one thing, if the objecitive to the titillation of an audience of one sort or another, thats something entirely different. And of course there are a million shades of gray in between these two. I try to listen for stylistic consistency and some sort of structure that makes the noise seem like it was intended and therefore a composition.


----------



## LarsikComposer

*What to compose?*

I think you should compose whatever you want to compose. There is only two rules in music, YOU and your HEART


----------



## Delicious Manager

Edward Elgar said:


> on the other there are the tonal composers like Einaudi. Which one is acceptable, or more importantly, which do you prefer?


I do hope you are not trying to suggest that cynical hack Einaudi is a classical composer! he is a writer of instrumental pop and he is a fraud just out for the fast buck.


----------

