# Can a good composer be a non-musical person?



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I get impression that in lot of modern music being musical is not a particularly big requirement for being a good composer. How I define "musicality"? Well, for me it's natural talent, natural ability to feel music, to understand it, to improvise, to create melodies in your head out of blue, without the need to construct them step by step by any scholastic method. A musical person is someone who hears a song once or twice and can easily play it on his guitar, or sing it rather well, or even improve it, add new elements, cover it in an original way. I think most/all folk musicians, especially in earlier times, in real traditional music were quite naturally musical. The same is true for most popular and classical composers.

But sometimes I think when music gets too academic, you don't need natural musicality anymore. You just need lots of skill and deep understanding of theory and methods. I guess a lot of modern compositions are CONSTRUCTED and not CONCEIVED. Well, they might be conceived in just the most general sense, and the method of composition can be conceived, but the music itself? I am not so sure. I have problems imagining that likes of Ferneyhough can conceive in their mind the essence of their music before writing it down. I think they construct it slowly, step by step. Their talent is perhaps in this, careful construction, maybe similar to storytelling, but rather distant from what I would call musicality. I see his skill to be similar to that of a good DJ. DJs can construct a good playlist that can lead the mood of the audience throughout the evening. So they combine songs with different moods and energies in a specific order so that they keep stimulating the atmosphere without overdoing it by playing the greatest hits all in quick succession, and then inevitably hitting an anticlimax. I guess some composers do the same, just replace songs of a playlist, with short musical phrases, or even individual notes. But for me it's not musicality, it's more like atmosphere management through the use of sound.

People whom I deem truly musical are: Mozart (obviously), Vivaldi, Tchaikovsky, Verdi, Puccini, Schubert, Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles, etc... Beethoven and Bach too, but I think their talent is greater in construction (in Bach's case) and in Beethoven's case both tight construction and great emotional expression through the use of music, but maybe a bit less so in raw "musicality".

So do you think, is it possible for someone to be a great composer, even if they are not naturally musical?

For example, lets take Ferneyhough or Webern? Whether or not they are musical, for me, depends on the answer to the following question: Could they (if they wanted) compose really "musical" music, melodic, moving, etc...? If they could, but just don't want to, due to their artistic philosophy, then YES, they are musical. If they actually couldn't, because it doesn't come naturally to them, well then perhaps they are not musical at all. Does it mean they are bad composers? Well, I don't know... maybe it does and emperor is naked, maybe it doesn't, maybe they can still compose very good music, even if it doesn't come from natural musicality.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

ZJovicic said:


> For example, lets take Ferneyhough or Webern? Whether or not they are musical, for me, depends on the answer to the following question: Could they (if they wanted) compose really "musical" music, melodic, moving, etc...? If they could, but just don't want to, due to their artistic philosophy, then YES, they are musical. If they actually couldn't, because it doesn't come naturally to them, well then perhaps they are not musical at all.


Too deep for me to wade into. But I have to say, your question already seems weighted with some questionable presuppositions about what is "musical."


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

As an amateur musician I can tell you the simple answer is no. There are certain basic musical skills that all musicians and composers must have.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

It's a very thought-provoking question! Actually I think this question is central theme of the play and movie 'Amadeus', where the Salieri character is the ideal of the 'non-musical' person who learns to 'construct' music, as you say, whereas the Mozart character is the one with the natural and spontaneous talent who can 'conceive' the music. 

But I think it's an oversimplification, because we can't really see into any composer's mind and hear their music through their own ears, and it's difficult to make that kind of a judgment about a composer because everything we listen to is colored by our own experience with music. Many times in my life I've formed such a conclusion about a particular composer, and only years later come back to them and discovered that I now hear their music differently and it can appear deeper or shallower than it did before when I bring my own new experiences to it. 

All that said, I'd add a couple of thoughts. To start, no composer exists in a vacuum. While musical talent can be in-born, it's not something that exists in isolation. Every composer is not just 'creating' music out of nothing, but rather is creating music as an act of reacting to the music they've heard. The language of the music exists and they always work within that language. So, second, every composer needs to be able to listen, understand and master the language and forms and structures of the music they're going to be working in. If they're going to compose, they have to have the right mix of technique as well as inspiration.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

The short version of this thread: 'I don't much like modern music'.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

eugeneonagain said:


> The short version of this thread: 'I don't much like modern music'.


About time we finally had a thread like that!


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Not really that I don't like it. I have listened to quite a lot of modern works, and I can enjoy them on some level, but I am still wondering about their real value. I DON'T KNOW what their value is, I am not competent enough to judge it. I could work with 2 hypotheses: it's really valuable and it takes a lot of effort to really get it, but it ultimately pays off, or it's really just pretentious music that is technical, without real value, and not too different from random succession of notes... which could too due to sheer familiarity, become enjoyable, after 20th listening, or so.

When I wondered about "musicality" of some composers it's because I see some of them to be more like advanced scientists, like theoretical physicists, or mathematicians, rather than artists. For example Xenakis' works are directly influenced by science.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Sorry to have to be so blunt, but I think only a certain type of person would want to make non-musical "sound art," and that is exactly what some modern classical "music" is supposed to be. I'm not being judgmental so much as their moral qualities, but a certain naivety about their knowing that what they are doing really doesn't need to be done. I know not judging others is some kind of moral code that we have hypocritical pretensions towards. I find these kinds of people somewhat careerist in a naive way. It goes the same way for painting. In painting, they often seemed to end bad, were alcoholics who couldn't get sober, suicidal, etc. but you're also not allowed to judge these things so just stating that isn't something most of us would want.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Oh, and I've heard (and seen live) both Francisco Lopez and Michael Northam. I ran in similar circles so I know these are normal people per se (lol) and they are the most innocent of the lot. At least some of their music can be pleasant enough or non-painful and interesting enough to sit through. The kind that I find really useless is the dissonant jarring stuff (not talking Schnittke or Rautavaara). A professional classical pianist at my church told me last week that he had to play one of those kinds of pieces, and every recording of it that he heard sounded different. I guess it's hard to tell what it's supposed to sound like.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

regenmusic said:


> Sorry to have to be so blunt, but I think only a certain type of person would want to make non-musical "sound art," and that is exactly what some modern classical "music" is supposed to be. I'm not being judgmental so much as their moral qualities, but a certain naivety about their knowing that what they are doing really doesn't need to be done. I know not judging others is some kind of moral code that we have hypocritical pretensions towards. I find these kinds of people somewhat careerist in a naive way. It goes the same way for painting. In painting, they often seemed to end bad, were alcoholics who couldn't get sober, suicidal, etc. but you're also not allowed to judge these things so just stating that isn't something most of us would want.


Not sure if I understood you... maybe my remarks are a bit harsh when I said that Emperor is maybe naked, or that some of these works maybe don't have value.

Actually, they can have a lot of ARTISTIC merit... they are maybe real works of art, but maybe ARTISTIC merit is not the same as musical merit. So perhaps 4'33'' is a great work of art with lots of artistic value, but maybe it is valuable as conceptual art, rather than music. Maybe it has high artistic merit, but no musical merit.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

regenmusic said:


> Sorry to have to be so blunt, but I think only a certain type of person would want to make non-musical "sound art," and that is exactly what some modern classical "music" is supposed to be. I'm not being judgmental so much as their moral qualities, but a certain naivety about their knowing that what they are doing really doesn't need to be done. I know not judging others is some kind of moral code that we have hypocritical pretensions towards. I find these kinds of people somewhat careerist in a naive way. It goes the same way for painting. In painting, they often seemed to end bad, were alcoholics who couldn't get sober, suicidal, etc. but you're also not allowed to judge these things so just stating that isn't something most of us would want.


I'm not sure why alcoholism or suicide should factor into our assessment of a painter's (or musician's) work.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

ZJovicic said:


> So perhaps 4'33'' is a great work of art with lots of artistic value, but maybe it is valuable as conceptual art, rather than music. Maybe it has high artistic merit, but no musical merit.


PLEASE, not that discussion AGAIN. There are hundreds of pages on it already.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> PLEASE, not that discussion AGAIN. There are hundreds of pages on it already.


Sorry, just crossed my mind. This discussion is about those works which actually contain sounds. 

But maybe similar dilemma can apply to them too: what if they are valuable as art, but not so much as music?

It would be good to know what type of music does Ferneyhough likes to listen to? I guess something much different from his own stuff.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> PLEASE, not that discussion AGAIN. There are hundreds of pages on it already.


Let's see how long we can remain silent.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> When I wondered about "musicality" of some composers it's because I see some of them to be more like advanced scientists, like theoretical physicists, or mathematicians, rather than artists. For example Xenakis' works are directly influenced by science.


It would be easy to look at the biographies of these composers and see how (or 'if') they spent the years following the same or similar musical education route. If they were non-musical I think it would have been truncated long before they got to the point of being a known composer.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

regenmusic said:


> Sorry to have to be so blunt, but I think only a certain type of person would want to make non-musical "sound art," and that is exactly what some modern classical "music" is supposed to be. I'm not being judgmental so much as their moral qualities, but a certain naivety about their knowing that what they are doing really doesn't need to be done. I know not judging others is some kind of moral code that we have hypocritical pretensions towards. I find these kinds of people somewhat careerist in a naive way. It goes the same way for painting. In painting, they often seemed to end bad, were alcoholics who couldn't get sober, suicidal, etc. but you're also not allowed to judge these things so just stating that isn't something most of us would want.


Well, as we have all learned (some anyway) art appreciation is not an objective science; neither is it a matter of Freudian pathologies. There are certain composers and sorts of music I don't much care for, but since there are others who do it is not reasonable for me to make a meal of it without having to assert that these people are deluded or mad or, at best, have bad taste.

It's not about hypocritical pretensions; when something is bad to the point of zero value, we recognise it sooner or later.


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

Can a good composer be a non-musical person? 

If by "musical" you mean able to create melodies, then the answer is "yes".

Tchaikovsky to compose a melody in his sleep; literally. I read that as a boy he would wake up crying because he couldn't get the music out of his head. Prokofiev was another beautiful melodist. 

Beethoven's melodies are not as catchy as Tchaikovsky's, but as you indicate, Beethoven had a very good sense of organization, and arrangement. Composers such as Rimsky-Korsakov and Ravel had a good sense of orchestral color. with Bach it was counterpoint.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I HAD IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been involved in this debate my entire life and I am losing my patience. One thing I have learned is that even to be a good atonal composer one has to know the foundations of tonal music. One can easily learn about why composers composed the way they do is by reading a good biography. All one has to do is read the Wikipedia biography of Xenakis and learn that as a youth he memorized the Mozart _Requiem_ and that he had a traditional music education.

Three composers that have been mentioned above that have composed what many members consider noise were capable of composing what would consider melodious music.

For examples;

Webern _Im summerwind_: 




Cage _In a Landscape_: 




Xenakis _Six Chansons for Piano_:




As a Greek I can hear elements of Greek folk music in the Xenakis.

I really think that many of the members here should do some research before making any of their pronouncements.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"As a Greek I can hear elements of Greek folk music in the Xenakis."

Me too. That's when I think he's at his best. But something like _Ergma_, I'm not so sure:


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> I HAD IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I have been involved in this debate my entire life and I am losing my patience. One thing I have learned is that even to be a good atonal composer one has to know the foundations of tonal music. One can easily learn about why composers composed the way they do is by reading a good biography. All one has to do is read the Wikipedia biography of Xenakis and learn that as a youth he memorized the Mozart _Requiem_ and that he had a traditional music education.
> 
> ...


I think there are many different voices, and perhaps you're not able to distinguish between them. I would never classify Xenakis in with the real dissonant careerist composers. I think people who have ears to hear can tell the difference. Do you merely accept everything the "academy" says is great music or art?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

As far as I can tell the 'iconoclasts' seem to have a much narrower palette than "the academy".


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I find Xenakis piece very fine.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

regenmusic said:


> I think there are many different voices, and perhaps you're not able to distinguish between them. I would never classify Xenakis in with the real dissonant careerist composers. I think people who have ears to hear can tell the difference. Do you merely accept everything the "academy" says is great music or art?


I apologize for giving the members the impression that I do not acknowledge the many "voices" here.

The only way I can respond to some of the above observations is to say that many of them clash with my real life experiences as an amateur musician.

Like the above remark about the classical pianist and Rautavaara. Differences in performances happen all of the time. I recall situations when during dress rehearsal a piece of music sounded one way and it sounded different during the performance.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

There are many modern composers that are musical. They can hear regular common practice AND beyond. Everything in traditional common practice has been done already by the 20th Century. So the melodies became freer but not random. There were different conventions invented, which don't need to be mathematical or academic. Artists were just bored of the same old. Same thing happened with Jazz in the 60's. These composers had loads of talent. All a listener or artist needs is a natural curiosity in having things done differently.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

To me, the intent of this thread has been to find a reason why contemporary/avant garde music stinks. The reason offered is that the composers putting out this lousy music are actually non-musical. I think that reason deserves to go into the garbage bin. Although I'm not much of a fan of contemporary music, I am sufficiently astute to realize that this is just another end-around to satisfy those who hold modern music in contempt. Get over it and simply listen to and enjoy the music that gives you pleasure without throwing zingers at the music and composers you don't appreciate and/or understand. Further, the disrespect these attitudes display toward our members who do love modern music is not a pretty sight.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Maybe, but I've given modern music its chance. Actually the most "stinky" modern music is something that I quite often listen - for fun, or as an experiment, to see if I can eventually get it, or like it. I had no problems listening to Schoenberg Piano concerto twice in a row, listening to some Ferneyhough, etc. It's just that I have my doubts about this music even if I eventually start liking it. Even if I start liking it, after n-th listening, I am still wondering if I like it because it's actually good, or just because I got so familiar with it.

BTW, there is a lot of contemporary and 20th century music from other styles that I actually DO like, in traditional sense. This thread was focused mainly on most academic/scientific/atonal, etc... styles. I am very aware they are just one current in contemporary music, and probably not even the biggest one.

But they are probably the most (in)famous one, and for some reason I have this "hobby" or habit of sometimes trying to listen to the most difficult works, just for the heck of it, to see if I can get it, like it, or just to test how I'll experience it.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> Maybe, but I've given modern music its chance. Actually the most "stinky" modern music is something that I quite often listen - for fun, or as an experiment, to see if I can eventually get it, or like it. I had no problems listening to Schoenberg Piano concerto twice in a row, listening to some Ferneyhough, etc. It's just that I have my doubts about this music even if I eventually start liking it. Even if I start liking it, after n-th listening, I am still wondering if I like it because it's actually good, or just because I got so familiar with it.
> 
> BTW, there is a lot of contemporary and 20th century music from other styles that I actually DO like, in traditional sense. This thread was focused mainly on most academic/scientific/atonal, etc... styles. I am very aware they are just one current in contemporary music, and probably not even the biggest one.
> 
> But they are probably the most (in)famous one, and for some reason I have this "hobby" or habit of sometimes trying to listen to the most difficult works, just for the heck of it, to see if I can get it, like it, or just to test how I'll experience it.


Given it "it's chance"? My dear fellow, do you give any other music 'chances' or does only modern art-music have to sit in probation until it's been decided that it makes the grade? What grade?

The idea is a simple one: you either listen to it and gain something from it, or you just move on to something you like. There are no requirements, no tests, no penalties for not liking this or that. I suppose if one is a composer it would pay to listen to what one's contemporaries are doing and my guess is a contemporary composer would already be familiar with current music and music from the recent past. Let's call that the "business end". As a listener it's much more simple.

However, there is a tendency to want to critique things not to one's taste, since the fact of not liking something must lie in a fault of the thing rather than one's capacity for appreciation, right? Or perhaps not.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> I really think that many of the members here should do some research before making any of their pronouncements.





Bulldog said:


> To me, the intent of this thread has been to find a reason why contemporary/avant garde music stinks. The reason offered is that the composers putting out this lousy music are actually non-musical. I think that reason deserves to go into the garbage bin. Although I'm not much of a fan of contemporary music, I am sufficiently astute to realize that this is just another end-around to satisfy those who hold modern music in contempt. Get over it and simply listen to and enjoy the music that gives you pleasure without throwing zingers at the music and composers you don't appreciate and/or understand. Further, the disrespect these attitudes display toward our members who do love modern music is not a pretty sight.


In my more optimistic moments I fantasize about a world in which everyone accepts that the last 100 years worth of music and art _actually happened_.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Of course they actually happened. But I think 20th century saw a great societal change, and this influenced the world of music itself. As other genres gained popularity classical music got in situation in which it didn't have to fulfill any need of society anymore.Their musical needs were already fulfilled by jazz, rock, etc. So it allowed it opportunity to focus on itself. In this process it produced many radical ideas, some great and some not so great works. Focus of my thread was those works that might have a great value in academic sense, because there are some great ideas behind those works, but which might have a questionable value for listening. I can imagine a composer reading a score by another composer and being delighted by ideas expressed in work, commenting things like "Ah...look at this, he did this! Wow". Afterwards they might sit and talk about it, which would be an extremely intellectually stimulating experience, but the actual performance and listening to such a work might pale in comparison.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> Focus of my thread was those works that might have a great value in academic sense, because there are some great ideas behind those works, but which might have a questionable value for listening. I can imagine a composer reading a score by another composer and being delighted by ideas expressed in work, commenting things like "Ah...look at this, he did this! Wow". Afterwards they might sit and talk about it, which would be an extremely intellectually stimulating experience, but the actual performance and listening to such a work might pale in comparison.


I don't know how many works there are that are considered intellectually great but of questionable value for listening (where the same people are judging both aspects). I've said before that AFAIC works get called "great" _because_ people like listening to them. Just to take one of my own favourites, Steve Reich - I think his idea of "phasing" is a really good one, but only because I enjoy the results so much. No doubt people who don't like the sound of his phase works think it's a pointless idea.

And the crack about the past 100 years actually happening - the point being that people who dislike the music of the past century have an irritating tendency to question its musical validity; whereas these same people may not like early music either but it somehow never occurs to them to dismiss it out of hand the way they do modern music.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Nereffid said:


> I don't know how many works there are that are considered intellectually great but of questionable value for listening (where the same people are judging both aspects).


Pierre Boulez said that his works of total serialism (Structures) were "absolutely necessary at that time", for intellectual and experimental reasons, but that he doesn't care to listen to such stuff anymore.

Here is the exact quote from Wikipeida, where I found it:



> Speaking of Structures, Book I in 2011 Boulez described it as a piece in which "the responsibility of the composer is practically absent. Had computers existed at that time I would have put the data through them and made the piece that way. But I did it by hand ... It was a demonstration through the absurd." Asked whether it should still be listened to as music, Boulez replied: "I am not terribly eager to listen to it. But for me it was an experiment that was absolutely necessary."[167]


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> As other genres gained popularity classical music got in situation in which it didn't have to fulfill any need of society anymore.Their musical needs were already fulfilled by jazz, rock, etc.


Why do you think that "classical" music was more trendy than popular urban songs and village folk music back in the day?

Your ideas about "truly musical" composer is actually wrong - some of the guys you listed are 99 % technique and like 1 % inspiration - like the opera composers, Mozart and Bach. There is more than enough information on their sources and methods of composition in the academic literature - for example, if want to learn to compose like Bach (or Mozart - the most overrated guy on this forum), there are tons of articles (for example subscribe to JSTOR) dissecting his work and the craft of counterpoint, writing fugues and cannons along with graphs and matrices (god may bless atonalists not for their music output, but for advances in the 20-21st century modern music theory research), or in the case of Mozart - breaking his whole style to common cliches - see Music in the Galant Style by Gjerdingen.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Why do you think that "classical" music was more trendy than popular urban songs and village folk music back in the day?
> 
> Your ideas about "truly musical" composer is actually wrong - some of the guys you listed are 99 % technique and like 1 % inspiration - like the opera composers, Mozart and Bach. There is more than enough information on their sources and methods of composition in the academic literature - for example, if want to learn to compose like Bach (or Mozart - the most overrated guy on this forum), there are tons of articles (for example subscribe to JSTOR) dissecting his work and the craft of counterpoint, writing fugues and cannons along with graphs and matrices (god may bless atonalists not for their music output, but for advances in the 20-21st century modern music theory research), or in the case of Mozart - breaking his whole style to common cliches - see Music in the Galant Style by Gjerdingen.


Well if it's really so, then their technique is really very good in deceiving us to believe that it's result of inspiration. I actually disagree with you. I think the influence of talent and inspiration is much bigger than those 1%, and that it is what separates the true artist from countless technicians, who still produce great works, but which can't be compared with true masterpieces.

But let's say there is some truth in your assesment. There probably is. Mabye talent is just an icing on a cake. Who knows. But then, in that case, I'd say that most talented musicians are actually folk musicians and even some popular musicians. For example many great guitarist learned guitar on their own, and shortly started producing very original riffs, solos, etc. Take Jimi Hendrix, for example, here are his beginnings:



> In mid-1958, at age 15, Hendrix acquired his first acoustic guitar, for $5.[38] He earnestly applied himself, playing the instrument for several hours daily, watching others and getting tips from more experienced guitarists, and listening to blues artists such as Muddy Waters, B.B. King, Howlin' Wolf, and Robert Johnson.[39] The first tune Hendrix learned how to play was "Peter Gunn", the theme from the television series of the same name.[40] Around that time, Hendrix jammed with boyhood friend Sammy Drain and his keyboard playing brother.[41] In 1959, while attending a concert by Hank Ballard & the Midnighters in Seattle, Hendrix met the group's guitarist Billy Davis.[42] Davis showed him some guitar licks and later got him a short gig with the Midnighters.[43] The two remained friends until Hendrix's death in 1970.[44]


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> Pierre Boulez said that his works of total serialism (Structures) were "absolutely necessary at that time", for intellectual and experimental reasons, but that he doesn't care to listen to such stuff anymore.
> 
> Here is the exact quote from Wikipeida, where I found it:


Okay, that's _one_... 

But even then a quick Google search tells me that British critic Tom Service finds "an austere beauty" in the music, and there's a still-active TC poster who a few years ago described a recording that combined _Structures_ with some John Cage as "a very satisfying (and relaxing) listening experience"...!

And I suppose in terms of your larger point, given Boulez's reputation as a conductor he's hardly a good example of a modernist composer lacking musicality. But I see more where you're coming from now.


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky (Apr 19, 2018)

Seems like three things are missing from this discussion, unless I missed something. Originality, Intention, and Inspirational to Who? Anyone can be creative, musician or otherwise. But can they be original? And even if they don't produce something truly original, it can still be extremely beautiful. That's the trick. And intentionality. Anyone can make something sound like say 12 tone, but did they do it on purpose? And finally, inspiration. What counts as being inspirational? I hate rap, but I know many people find inspiration in it, say particular songs. I OTOH gain inspiration from Debussy. Which artist is being musically inspiring? The rapper or Debussy? Just depends on the listener IMO. Is one better than the other? Doesn't matter.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Ludwig Von Chumpsky said:


> And intentionality. Anyone can make something sound like say 12 tone, but did they do it on purpose?


That seems to me contradictory. Either they 'made' something sound like something or it is an accident. If it's an accident and someone thinks it 'sounds like 12 tone' it's probably the listener thinking it's '12 tone', but anyone conversant with dodecaphony would probably know.

I don't think "anyone" can make music sound like 12 tone music unless they are writing 12 tone music.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2018)

amfortas said:


> About time we finally had a thread like that!


You're so right! There's been none of those.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> But let's say there is some truth in your assesment. There probably is. Mabye talent is just an icing on a cake. Who knows. But then, in that case, I'd say that most talented musicians are actually folk musicians and even some popular musicians. For example many great guitarist learned guitar on their own, and shortly started producing very original riffs, solos, etc. Take Jimi Hendrix, for example, here are his beginnings:


Hendrix's music is heavily influenced by common blues licks. I don't think that being self-taught or having a natural talent is a big deal (many child prodigies - not only in music, but in other fields - do not become anything deserving recognition). For the normal listener it doesn't matter is it a technique, inspiration or talent - it's all about the end result.
Marketing something as unique or being exceptional is easier, but in general there are thousands of forgotten composers that have written at least some good to great music (even some of the 20th-21st century avantgarde is not completely horrible - it's not hard to find interesting or relatively listenable musical parts, despite all the dissonance and random rhythms). But most people are brainwashed just in Bach, Mozart and Beethoven and the 19th romantic century idea of genius worship.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Your ideas about "truly musical" composer is actually wrong - some of the guys you listed are 99 % technique and like 1 % inspiration - like the opera composers, Mozart and Bach.


Your's are even stranger. Bach never even wrote an opera.

Regardless if all it took to compose music as highly regarded as Mozart's or Bach's is good technique I feel there should be a lot more Mozarts and Bachs running around.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ZJovicic said:


> Pierre Boulez said that his works of total serialism (Structures) were "absolutely necessary at that time", for intellectual and experimental reasons, but that he doesn't care to listen to such stuff anymore.
> 
> Here is the exact quote from Wikipeida, where I found it:
> 
> _Speaking of Structures, Book I in 2011 Boulez described it as a piece in which *"the responsibility of the composer is practically absent. Had computers existed at that time I would have put the data through them and made the piece that way. But I did it by hand ... It was a demonstration through the absurd."* Asked whether it should still be listened to as music, Boulez replied: "I am not terribly eager to listen to it. But for me it was an experiment that was absolutely necessary."_


A striking quote, considering what Boulez had once said about the uselessness of non-serial music for the modern age. Ah, the wisdom of youth...

By definition, inspired music can't be written by non-musical people, but compositional techniques can be learned and applied by people with no profound gifts, and that has no doubt happened throughout history. We now do have computers being programmed to "compose" music in certain historical styles, though from what I've heard it sounds pretty bland and anonymous (which isn't to say that there isn't room for improvement). Hard to say how "musical" the programmers are.

Some compositional procedures are certainly more susceptible to "mechanization" than others; I think we should take Boulez at his word about the implications of "total serialism" - that it could render the composer almost unnecessary - and more than one composer of note has found his innate musicality rebelling against the strictures of a technique so totalitarian in its control of his mind and emotions (I think of Rochberg and Adams). The hordes of aspiring composers asked to strangle their musical instincts during the heyday of academic serialism, and the acres of forest land denuded to provide them with paper for their indistinguishable cerebral exercises, are not pleasant things to contemplate.

I doubt there were ever many truly unmusical composers, but there have certainly been many of no great talent whose music is now deservedly forgotten. Of historical styles, I've often thought the Classical might be the easiest in which to produce something academically respectable with no particular inspiration required. The sonata and rondo forms, the predominance of closely related tonal levels, the formulaic cadences, the homophonic textures, the Alberti basses... The great challenge isn't so much in learning to compose with these devices, but in writing something that doesn't sound commonplace (and in understanding how Mozart and Haydn did just that). Even so, nothing very listenable could be produced by an "unmusical" composer, and any such who presumed to grace the field of music would have ended up playing out-of-tune organs and directing squealing boychoirs in provincial churches rather than composing divertimenti for dukes and princes.

As far as contemporary music goes, if any of it is being made by truly unmusical people (and I've heard some that might as well be), it will find its proper place in oblivion and we needn't worry about it.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

BachIsBest said:


> Your's are even stranger. Bach never even wrote an opera.
> 
> Regardless if all it took to compose music as highly regarded as Mozart's or Bach's is good technique I feel there should be a lot more Mozarts and Bachs running around.


Well, I replied to his post where he listed some opera composers. You misunderstood my statement.

"I feel there should be a lot more Mozarts and Bachs running around" - you mean guys that were hyped by the critics and the recording companies? I think that there is a plenty of wonderful music predating and composed after these famous guys. It's just not popular. The last time I was completely blown away was by some A. Scarlatti and his chromatic melodies from his operas (not popular these days at all for some reason.)

"Some nineteenth-century musicians in the post-Beethoven era did have an interest in
the musical past and explored the surviving manuscripts and prints. Yet many Romantics,
rather like conquistadors who discarded the Incas' finest treasures-cloaks of intricate
feather work-in their search for gold, colonized their eighteenth-century musical heritage,
looting a few extraordinary items-late Mozart, some works of J. S. Bach-but discarding
the works that had been the most highly regarded by the patrons of the ancien
regime. Almost like an Old Testament strongly reinterpreted by a New Testament,
eighteenth-century music came to be heard through the filter of nineteenth-century
music. Meanings changed, and to paraphrase Adams, "only fragments of the old" would
be heard by the new ears. Galant works would become judged by the degree to which they
were amenable to Romantic reception. In the words of the French novelist Andre Gide,
"The classical work of art will not be strong and beautiful save by virtue of its subjugated
romantisicm [romantisme dompte}" Though Gide's dictum can be profitably applied to
the neoclassicism of the 1920s and to the early twentieth-century reception of eighteenthcentury
art, it stands as a very poor guide to the tastes and values of galant society".

I really recommend this book.


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2018)

ZJovicic said:


> So do you think, is it possible for someone to be a great composer, even if they are not naturally musical?


To take the question at "face value" (that is to say, to give it some credence as a valid question), yes, it is.

To take the question to pieces as some others have done, you'd have to start with a decent workable definition of "musical" to be able to get to "non-musical" and I don't think you've done that.

Then there's the usual questions about "great".

And then if I was to accept what might be narrowly implied by the question ("Is it possible to be as great as Mozart when what you write is 'Concerto for 32 Inkjet Printers'?") the answer has to be, "No."



ZJovicic said:


> I am still wondering about their real value. I DON'T KNOW what their value is, I am not competent enough to judge it.


That seems to me to pose a more legitimate question, but even so, it assumes that music must be "judged" and there's always the counter to that which is that the only judge worth bothering about is personal taste. If you like it, it has value.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Hendrix's music is heavily influenced by common blues licks. I don't think that being self-taught or having a natural talent is a big deal (many child prodigies - not only in music, but in other fields - do not become anything deserving recognition). For the normal listener it doesn't matter is it a technique, inspiration or talent - it's all about the end result.
> Marketing something as unique or being exceptional is easier, but in general there are thousands of forgotten composers that have written at least some good to great music (even some of the 20th-21st century avantgarde is not completely horrible - it's not hard to find interesting or relatively listenable musical parts, despite all the dissonance and random rhythms). But most people are brainwashed just in Bach, Mozart and Beethoven and the 19th romantic century idea of genius worship.


I am trying to get where you are coming from and to ignore the implication that I am an idiot who has been manipulated by hype and marketing. I do love the music of "Bach, Mozart and Beethoven" more than most of their contemporaries and would think it insulting if, after I had added Haydn and Handel to your list, you were to try to tell me that I am just responding to hype. I know a lot of other music from their time and enjoy much of it. But it is very rarely indeed that I find something that can transport me as so much of their output can. There is a difference. I'm sorry you can't hear it.

It is OK that you don't really get contemporary music - no need to say that there are bits that are OK - but what was your point about Hendrix? He was influenced, he learned from those who went before. But many have been influenced by the same traditions and only one or two emerged as being as great as Hendrix!

Are you saying that a great artist like Hendrix was not so great because he was influenced by what came before? Clearly, you wouldn't say something that weak?


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

amfortas said:


> Too deep for me to wade into. But I have to say, your question already seems weighted with some questionable presuppositions about what is "musical."


Certainly Webern was "naturally musical" -- listen to his early works _Im Sommerwind_, _Passacaglia_ for orchestra, his orchestration of Bach. But I think his atonal music and serial works also demonstrate great musicality, though opinions differ greatly on that. I had studied Webern's _Symphony_ academically, but it was only after playing his _Piano Variations _ that I got into his music.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

I think a lot of these questions help narrow down some very important aspects of appreciating serious music today and aren't the same old question rehashed. This one in particular is well-phrased.

I bet if we all had studied music enough to break down these topics more, we would be asking about the parts of tri-tones and non-resolving this or that and really try to establish what we think is good music verses art we don't think should be required to sit through enough times until we "get it" if it isn't music to us. 

So, no reason why topics like this have to end.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Well, I replied to his post where he listed some opera composers. You misunderstood my statement.
> 
> "I feel there should be a lot more Mozarts and Bachs running around" - you mean guys that were hyped by the critics and the recording companies? I think that there is a plenty of wonderful music predating and composed after these famous guys. It's just not popular. The last time I was completely blown away was by some A. Scarlatti and his chromatic melodies from his operas (not popular these days at all for some reason.)


No I don't mean guys overhyped by critics and recording companies. Until the late 20th century Bach was certainly not regarded as being on the same level as Mozart and Beethoven and that was well into the era of recording companies. Plus I honestly can't belive you seriously think that classical recording companies are trying to hype certain composers way beyond how good they actually are to drive up porfits. Many people go into the classical music industry to drive up profits.

I do agree there was some great music composed before and after Bach and Mozart. Bach and Mozart get so much more attention because there music is even more wonderful. Much of it has even become somewhat popular among classical music listners such as Monteverdi. I don't see how this detracts from Bach and Mozart though.


----------

