# Serenade in E flat for winds



## kostas papazafeiropoulos

Hello again! this is a first part of a serenade that i composed for wind instrments.

I hope you 'll enjoy it !


----------



## DaDirkNL

I like this and I salute you for composing in a classical style.


----------



## kostas papazafeiropoulos

thank you very much. this is the style i like the most! I will upload the second part today or tomorrow


----------



## Matsps

This is very nice! I especially liked the opening of the allegro. How long did it take to compose?


----------



## arpeggio

*Question*

Question. Do you have any experience at playing any woodwind instruments?


----------



## kostas papazafeiropoulos

I had written long time ago the opening on a piece of paper and i thought that this would be a nice idea for a wind serenade. i kept the paper and i found it again wrote all the movements and here it is. I can't tell you the exact amount of ti,me because each movement was completed in different times along with other pieces.


----------



## kostas papazafeiropoulos

arpeggio said:


> Question. Do you have any experience at playing any woodwind instruments?


None. I play the piano.


----------



## arpeggio

kostas papazafeiropoulos said:


> None. I play the piano.


Then there is a potential problem with your parts. You have many running 16th note parts. At the tempo of the piece, with the exception of first rate professionals, most woodwind players are going to have problems tonguing the parts. Sluring every four 16th notes would make the parts more playable.


----------



## kostas papazafeiropoulos

Thank you! Very informative.


----------



## DrKilroy

I believe the piece would be more performer-friendly if you transcribed it for a string orchestra. 

Best regards, Dr


----------



## kostas papazafeiropoulos

orchestra or solo string quintet?


----------



## Matsps

arpeggio said:


> Then there is a potential problem with your parts. You have many running 16th note parts. At the tempo of the piece, with the exception of first rate professionals, most woodwind players are going to have problems tonguing the parts. Sluring every four 16th notes would make the parts more playable.


Although it's good that you gave advice on how to change the piece to make it more easily playable, I don' think that is of necessary to make pieces easy. Many of the greatest composers had a complete disregard for how difficult a piece of music was to play.; all that mattered was the sound.


----------



## DrKilroy

kostas papazafeiropoulos said:


> orchestra or solo string quintet?


I thought about an orchestra, but your piece is written for eight winds, so a transcription for string octet could also work.

Best regards, Dr


----------



## kostas papazafeiropoulos

Actually a string octet wouldn't be good a good call, because the intsruments doubling the horns wouldn't do much work as they are capable of. i think the best transcription would be a quartet or a quintet.


----------



## DrKilroy

You know the score better than me.  

Best regards, Dr


----------



## PetrB

Matsps said:


> Although it's good that you gave advice on how to change the piece to make it more easily playable, I don' think that is of necessary to make pieces easy. Many of the greatest composers had a complete disregard for how difficult a piece of music was to play.; all that mattered was the sound.


The technical level of a piece, and likelihood of getting players willing and able to play it, has very much to do with your standing as a composer and the degree to which your work is known.

If you can not even find a bunch of conservatory students who can give you a decent read-through, let alone a well-rehearsed performance, the accessibility of the parts for the players is no little a matter, but a crucial one.

If you can expect high-level professionals to perform your works, i.e. you are well established, your work having made its mark to have a reputation, the sky is the limit. If you are unknown and hoping for some mutually beneficial arrangement -- i.e. your work for new young players and the new young players to perform your work (usually for no pay) -- then you may want to think of some technical limits.

If you are deftly writing in a retro-derivative period style -- _i.e. you have some great and well-known public domain repertoire already in circulation as your competitor (as in who really wants a clever 'like Mozart' piece when you've got Mozart?)_ -- you might want to be meticulously careful if the parts for that work can be readily performed.

ADD P.s.
If you intend on being a midi rendered composer only, then write whatever the midi playback allows, free of any and all concerns for real instruments and real players.


----------



## kostas papazafeiropoulos

i think both of your opinions are correct it depends how you see matters. And i thank you both for commenting. i only hope you like the piece.


----------



## Chordalrock

It's a nice two movements. And speaking of retro-style and Mozart as competitor, Mozart himself had Haydn as competitor -- this didn't mean he threw in the towel and started composing musical jokes using nothing but whole-tone scale or something. Composing modern music can easily be -- yes -- a cop-out, as PetrB inadvertently intimated. You aren't good enough to compete with Mozart or Bach or Brahms, then why should anybody think you're as much worth their time as those composers just because you hide your inferiority by composing in a style that makes direct comparisons impossible? Rhetorical question.

But of course if you do compete with Mozart, as kostas here does, you will inevitably provoke these sorts of condemnations unless you can -- not only compete with the average Mozart -- but the very best of Mozart. Here's where the composer needs extremely high level of self-criticism, like, "is this piece as good or almost as good as the first movement of the great G minor symphony?" I think a lot of people have the potential to rise to this level, but perhaps they're not aiming high enough.


----------



## DrKilroy

Anyway, I believe that composing in classical style is a very good exercise in composition overall. If your very first composition is a long, "modern", spectral piece for a large orchestra, then it is probably not very good. For a start, one should develop basic composing skills writing exercise compositions in more straightforward classical style.

Best regards, Dr


----------



## aleazk

Chordalrock said:


> But of course if you do compete with Mozart, as kostas here does, you will inevitably provoke these sorts of condemnations unless you can -- not only compete with the average Mozart -- but the very best of Mozart. Here's where the composer needs extremely high level of self-criticism, like, "is this piece as good or almost as good as the first movement of the great G minor symphony?" I think a lot of people have the potential to rise to this level, but perhaps they're not aiming high enough.


It has nothing to do with those things you mention. The answer is simple: it has already been done (and closed*) 300 years ago... this inevitably provokes even well written pieces, like this one, to sound derivative and therefore forgettable.

I agree with DrKilroy, writing in the style of earlier times is something useful for learning and I recommend it. But as an artistic product in the 21st century it simply does not work.

*Adding to this. This is actually the main problem: the style is closed. If you want to write in a closed style (like the classical era style), there are two options: i) you don't innovate, and rely on imitation; ii) you "open" the sytle (i.e., "I think it has not been said everything that can be said in this style").

The problem with i) is the one I mentioned before, inevitably provokes the pieces to sound derivative and therefore forgettable.
In ii), the problem is that the resulting piece is not anymore in the classical era style!, since the style has been closed, closed in its definition and scope. The resulting piece probably will sound very odd and in the best case, like a piece written in the style that came after the classical era.

That's the true, "intrinsic", problem.

The modern style is not closed. So, even if you take elements from other composers, there's still a chance to innovate or to produce something that can be considered inside the style and at the same time "authentic" and not derivative.

Anyway, sorry for derailing this. As a comment to the piece, I would say some parts definitely are more suitable (in the idiomatic sense) for a string section.

At some parts I felt I was listening to an orchestral piece (i.e., an orchestra with winds and strings) being played by a wind ensemble in a non very idiomatic transcription for the ensemble in question. In this sense, my critique is not only about playability in this aspect.


----------



## Chordalrock

My message was relevant to this thread in that I wanted indirectly to encourage Kostas to aim higher. I think he has potential and I don't think he should abandon his preferred style.

And here's why...



aleazk said:


> It has nothing to do with those things you mention. The answer is simple: it has already been done (and closed*) 300 years ago... this inevitably provokes even well written pieces, like this one, to sound derivative and therefore forgettable.


You mean, "to my ears," surely. There are probably many more people who'd disagree with you than there are those who'd agree, which is perhaps why you subconsciously feel the urge to write about such a supposedly self-evident truth. Sorry, mostly people who associate "new" with "modern" are those who would agree with you, and they're in the minority. I'd imagine most people associate "new" with "something they haven't heard or seen before". To their ears, and to mine, a lot of modern pieces sound less new (i.e. more samey) than a composition of Beethoven we haven't heard before -- which is a listening experience that would be equivalent to hearing an expertly-written and imaginative "classical imitation" by a modern composer.

Not everybody is as hyper-sensitive to the historical context in which they listen to something as you seem to be. We others mostly just want to hear imaginative and beautiful music. You are like a person who will say a painting is great or crappy depending on whether it's being shown in a prestigious museum or not -- you care too much about the context and too little about the object. It's kind of sad really.


----------



## aleazk

Chordalrock said:


> My message was relevant to this thread in that I wanted indirectly to encourage Kostas to aim higher. I think he has potential and I don't think he should abandon his preferred style.
> 
> And here's why...
> 
> You mean, "to my ears," surely. There are probably many more people who'd disagree with you than there are those who'd agree, which is perhaps why you subconsciously feel the urge to write about such a supposedly self-evident truth. Sorry, mostly people who associate "new" with "modern" are those who would agree with you, and they're in the minority. I'd imagine most people associate "new" with "something they haven't heard or seen before". To their ears, and to mine, a lot of modern pieces sound less new (i.e. more samey) than a composition of Beethoven we haven't heard before -- which is a listening experience that would be equivalent to hearing an expertly-written and imaginative "classical imitation" by a modern composer.
> 
> Not everybody is as hyper-sensitive to the historical context in which they listen to something as you seem to be. We others mostly just want to hear imaginative and beautiful music. You are like a person who will say a painting is great or crappy depending on whether it's being shown in a prestigious museum or not -- you care too much about the context and too little about the object. It's kind of sad really.


This has nothing to do with what I said... lol, I don't care for the historical moment, I care for music not being derivative... happens in modern music too... but it's certainly more likely to happen in pastiche composition.
Subconscious?, lol, we got Sigmund F. here...


----------



## kostas papazafeiropoulos

All i can say its that i write the music i like to listen to. I don't do it cause to be famous/ or the music to be played/ or whatever can anyone imagine. 
I don't mind if it is called "new" or "old" this is not the case. I don;r try to be original. i just do as i feel.
I like writing in the classical style. I like when people like it or if they don't it is ok. And of course criticism is ok too. 
also it is nice that this piece made us debate.


----------



## Guest

kostas papazafeiropoulos said:


> Hello again! this is a first part of a serenade that i composed for wind instrments.
> I hope you 'll enjoy it !


Yassas, Kostas!
Thank you for posting that. I have a few comments to make, if you don't mind.
First, your work is really a very good exercise in rendering a piece in the classical style; that is to say, quite idiomatic. I feel sure this would gain you a very respectable mark in most BMus courses from UK university music departments. Certainly a very good mark from French university musicology departments!
Secondly, in terms of instrumentation, I would say that you expect your wind players to have Herculean lungs !!! Wind players need to breathe. I say this as a non-wind player, and I do enjoy seeing them suffer.
Thirdly, a lot of the figuration seems more suited to strings. Perhaps you could re-orchestrate for strings and wind?
My fourth and final point is perhaps trickier. There is nothing at all wrong with writing "in the style of" to develop one's technique. Given that you evidently have a certain compositional facility, I would be much more interested to see/hear your sketches (or even complete works) of music that you have composed "in your own voice", if you see what I mean.


----------



## kostas papazafeiropoulos

I feel sure this would gain you a very respectable mark in most BMus courses from UK university music departments. Certainly a very good mark from French university musicology departments!

It nice to hear this cause i've never took classes for composition.

Secondly, in terms of instrumentation, I would say that you expect your wind players to have Herculean lungs !!! Wind players need to breathe. I say this as a non-wind player, and I do enjoy seeing them suffer.
I do too  

Thirdly, a lot of the figuration seems more suited to strings. Perhaps you could re-orchestrate for strings and wind?

I may re orchestrate for string quintet.

My fourth and final point is perhaps trickier. There is nothing at all wrong with writing "in the style of" to develop one's technique. Given that you evidently have a certain compositional facility, I would be much more interested to see/hear your sketches (or even complete works) of music that you have composed "in your own voice", if you see what I mean.

I have a youtube channel you can check. I;ll post more and more in the near future. 
Thank you for commnting


----------



## Chordalrock

aleazk said:


> This has nothing to do with what I said... lol, I don't care for the historical moment, I care for music not being derivative...


I don't think you understand. Mozart himself was derivative -- of his own earlier compositions if nothing else. Very few of the great composers reinvented themselves with every work they composed -- in fact, no one did -- yet we are happy to listen to them.

My point was that if somebody composed a great classical symphony and successfully passed it off as Beethoven's 10th, "previously thought to be unfinished!", you would evaluate it very differently than if this modern imitator simply published it as his own work. That means you're biased by extra-musical considerations, which shouldn't be the case when you're dealing with a piece of absolute music instead of, say, an opera or mass.

But I've expressed all this before and I have nothing else to add. If you don't get it then you don't perhaps want to get it.


----------



## Matsps

@Everyone complaining about classical style compositions. 

Composition has no rules. No-one should be forced to compose in '21st century' style (what is that anyway? God-awful pop music with a dull 4/4 kick, 4 chord harmonies and simplistic off-beat vocal melodies?). You can compose in whatever style you want, classical, baroque, modern, acoustic, synthesized whatever. There are no rules on this.


----------



## aleazk

Chordalrock said:


> I don't think you understand. Mozart himself was derivative -- of his own earlier compositions if nothing else. Very few of the great composers reinvented themselves with every work they composed -- in fact, no one did -- yet we are happy to listen to them.
> 
> My point was that if somebody composed a great classical symphony and successfully passed it off as Beethoven's 10th, "previously thought to be unfinished!", you would evaluate it very differently than if this modern imitator simply published it as his own work. That means you're biased by extra-musical considerations, which shouldn't be the case when you're dealing with a piece of absolute music instead of, say, an opera or mass.
> 
> But I've expressed all this before and I have nothing else to add. If you don't get it then you don't perhaps want to get it.


You see, the point I'm making is not about the historical moment, but about the fact that it has already been done by other/s. Your hypothetical scenario can be easily posed in Beethoven's time thus removing the historical component of your point.

Now, concerning the dilemma in this correct interpretation, I think there's no point in making art if you are not going to put your voice in it. You are treating art as some kind of mathematical theorem, a completely abstract entity, whose truth value only depends on logic and not in the person who proved it. That works in math. Art is by definition a cultural construct, and its value resides precisely in its human and subjective dimensions. Unlike a mathematical theorem, I think a work of art is intrinsically tied to its creator or composer. You consider this an extra-musical thing, I consider it as something vital to the music.

Leaving aside the fact that you need to come up with those ridiculous and completely surreal sitiations in order to make your point, in the case of the Beethoven piece, I would enjoy it greatly, because if it is a perfectly made piece in the style of Beethoven, then it actually can be treated as a piece by Beethoven, since his inner voice is there. So, you, as a composer, disappear there, it becomes Beethoven's piece, not yours. Then, to write Beethoven's 10th is not an artistic achievement, it's a technical achivement. It only means you have studied Beethoven and you can emulate him. If you ask me, that's not art, art is much, but much more than that. If you are not Beethoven, then to write Beethoven's 10th is in the same scale of artistic achievement of this, LOL.
Everyone is a fortune teller with tomorrow's newspaper in the hand...
I wouldn't consider this hypothetical composer an artist, just a common thief of artistic ideas he's incaplable of producing by his own...


----------



## Guest

Matsps said:


> @Everyone complaining about classical style compositions.
> 
> Composition has no rules. No-one should be forced to compose in '21st century' style (what is that anyway? God-awful pop music with a dull 4/4 kick, 4 chord harmonies and simplistic off-beat vocal melodies?). You can compose in whatever style you want, classical, baroque, modern, acoustic, synthesized whatever. There are no rules on this.


I'm certainly *not* complaining about Kostas' ability to render really quite effective pastiche. What I *have* done is to make (positive) critique in asking what his "own voice" might be. In short, I see Kostas's Serenade for wind instruments as a very useful and well rendered exercise and stepping stone (despite qualms about orchestration), not a finished concert piece that I would pay money for.


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> My message was relevant to this thread in that I wanted indirectly to encourage Kostas to aim higher. I think he has potential and I don't think he should abandon his preferred style.
> 
> And here's why...
> [Originally Posted by aleazk:
> "It has nothing to do with those things you mention. The answer is simple: it has already been done (and closed*) 300 years ago... this inevitably provokes even well written pieces, like this one, to sound derivative and therefore forgettable."]
> 
> You mean, "to my ears," surely.


Actually, that is what _you _mean, and I find that naive or disingenuous at best. Historic context or no, this music sounds about as specific as the general description which nets the five or six people who are rounded up for a police line-up, i.e. all generic, fitting a generic description, without having any individual character, personality.



Chordalrock said:


> There are probably many more people who'd disagree with you than there are those who'd agree, which is perhaps why you subconsciously feel the urge to write about such a supposedly self-evident truth.


Well, if I wanted to sound like a presumptuous moralist certain of dispensing what I believed to be a truth, I could probably generalize like that. I do think you are wildly wrong here, there, and everywhere in these counter-arguments you've presented.



Chordalrock said:


> Sorry, mostly people who associate "new" with "modern" are those who would agree with you, and they're in the minority. I'd imagine most people associate "new" with "something they haven't heard or seen before".


The Great Madama Fazoola must own a highly reliable crystal ball and the gift to read it! _New means 'news,' as in current or fresh; that does not automatically equate to mean the most modern or avant garde style of art, or whether that is on display in a museum, coffee shop, or hanging on the wall of the artist's studio._



Chordalrock said:


> Not everybody is as hyper-sensitive to the historical context in which they listen to something as you seem to be.


You need not know anything at all of history to see that one reproduction early American style house looks very much like another reproduction early American style house.



Chordalrock said:


> We others mostly just want to hear imaginative and beautiful music.


That is exactly what I, too, hope to hear when presented with a new piece. What I found in this particular serenade was something very facile, clever, and "original" while sounding wholly derivative, i.e. a "good" student model writing exercise -- except for the fact it seems to lack some basic knowledge of what is good idiomatic and playable writing for the instruments 



Chordalrock said:


> You are like a person who will say a painting is great or crappy depending on whether it's being shown in a prestigious museum or not -- you care too much about the context and too little about the object.


 I think this is not addressable, i.e. wrongly judgmental without being toward any point about the music. Tsk Tsk.

and that is...



Chordalrock said:


> ...kind of sad really.


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> You see, the point I'm making is not about the historical moment, but about the fact that it has already been done by other/s. Your hypothetical scenario can be easily posed in Beethoven's time thus removing the historical component of your point.
> 
> Now, concerning the dilemma in this correct interpretation, I think there's no point in making art if you are not going to put your voice in it. You are treating art as some kind of mathematical theorem, a completely abstract entity, whose truth value only depends on logic and not in the person who proved it. That works in math. Art is by definition a cultural construct, and its value resides precisely in its human and subjective dimensions. Unlike a mathematical theorem, I think a work of art is intrinsically tied to its creator or composer. You consider this an extra-musical thing, I consider it as something vital to the music.


My goodness this is extremely well-said.:tiphat:....:tiphat:....:tiphat:....


----------



## Pennypacker

Chordalrock said:


> I don't think you understand. Mozart himself was derivative -- of his own earlier compositions if nothing else. Very few of the great composers reinvented themselves with every work they composed -- in fact, no one did -- yet we are happy to listen to them.
> 
> My point was that if somebody composed a great classical symphony and successfully passed it off as Beethoven's 10th, "previously thought to be unfinished!", you would evaluate it very differently than if this modern imitator simply published it as his own work. That means you're biased by extra-musical considerations, which shouldn't be the case when you're dealing with a piece of absolute music instead of, say, an opera or mass.
> 
> But I've expressed all this before and I have nothing else to add. If you don't get it then you don't perhaps want to get it.


You're good with hypothetical situations. But you're overlooking a major factor here. aleazk pretty much gave it away already. Give it a try, perhaps? 
If not, would you care to offer an explanation for the absence of any Beethovens today (or the last 187 years for that matter)? Is no one good enough? Or is it the evil academia?


----------



## Chordalrock

I knew you wouldn't bother to even read me properly, and I'm sorry to say you don't surprise me. I clearly said this piece doesn't reach the kind of imaginativeness that the best work of Mozart and Beethoven does. So what are you talking about?

I myself was talking about hypothetical retro style pieces by modern composers that do equal the best of the classics.

Everybody is conveniently forgetting facts such as that--

--_*some of Josquin's best loved pieces have turned out to be by composers almost nobody knew of.*_

PetrB in his glorious wisdom would now, if he were capable of consistency, condemn those pieces to the memory hole because they don't have the right name attached to them. They're not by Josquin, so they must be at best "good student pieces".

Good luck with that attitude. Most people will continue to hope there were more pieces like Beethoven's fifth and fewer pieces like those of our modern composers.


----------



## aleazk

Chordalrock said:


> Most people will continue to hope there were more pieces like Beethoven's fifth and fewer pieces like those of our modern composers.


LOL, I think this makes clear from where you are coming from... what a waste of time...


----------



## PetrB

Pennypacker said:


> You're good with hypothetical situations. But you're overlooking a major factor here. aleazk pretty much gave it away already. Give it a try, perhaps?
> If not, would you care to offer an explanation for the absence of any Beethovens today (or the last 187 years for that matter)? Is no one good enough? Or is it the evil academia?


Actually, it is because there is generally a social taboo about playing / _____ing with the dead


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> Most people will continue to hope there were more pieces like Beethoven's fifth and fewer pieces like those of our modern composers.*


*Retro-reactionary classical music fan publicly exposed ~ film at eleven.*

Just about anyone can sometimes slip into generalizing so it appears they are (mistakenly) speaking for many. It might come as a shock that of those "many / most" people for whom you think you are speaking, any number of them might be highly offended that you have taken the liberty, without "their" permission, to put your words in their mouths.

* So much for Luigi's 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th symphonies, I guess


----------



## Aramis

aleazk said:


> LOL, I think this makes clear from where you are coming from... what a waste of time...


To write all these lectures about how one should be modern and quit looking back is always waste of time but some of you feel no less inclined to do such thing than musical conservatives to keep posting reluctant comments about more modern compositions here. There's no difference between Saul talking abstract stuff about substance etc. in your PC thread and those who came here to suggest that Kostas should go ape Ligeti because it's more original than aping Mozart. You're all just pushing in some agenda that is highly unlikely to change anybodys mind but very likely to create unpleasant offtopic that has little to do with composition presented by the OP.


----------



## Pennypacker

PetrB said:


> Actually, it is because there is generally a social taboo about playing / _____ing with the dead


Don't try to cover up your words with horizontal lines! 
Here: Dancing with the dead. And I disagree: 



.


----------



## aleazk

Aramis said:


> To write all these lectures about how one should be modern and quit looking back is always waste of time but some of you feel no less inclined to do such thing than musical conservatives to keep posting reluctant comments about more modern compositions here. There's no difference between Saul talking abstract stuff about substance etc. in your PC thread and those who came here to suggest that Kostas should go ape Ligeti because it's more original than aping Mozart. You're all just pushing in some agenda that is highly unlikely to change anybodys mind.


No, it's not the same. Saul just talked about "souls" and said the piece was crap because of that. I'm actually providing arguments here, if you disagree with those arguments, then post your specific answers to them... and I didn't say this piece was crap... quite the opposite in fact, I even gave some technical feedback to the piece...


----------



## Chordalrock

aleazk said:


> LOL, I think this makes clear from where you are coming from... what a waste of time...


Sorry, I've composed modern music myself, so perhaps you were jumping to conclusions here as usual. I'm afraid you're again failing to be relevant by imagining meanings that weren't intended and disregarding the actual content of my message.

If composers compose more works in the classical style, they have to inevitably compose less in modern styles. There's a necessary tradeoff and I'd rather the balance shifted toward classical style is all I was saying.

Now talk to me about Josquin.


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> I knew you wouldn't bother to even read me properly, and I'm sorry to say you don't surprise me. I clearly said this piece doesn't reach the kind of imaginativeness that the best work of Mozart and Beethoven does. So what are you talking about?
> 
> I myself was talking about hypothetical retro style pieces by modern composers that do equal the best of the classics.
> 
> Everybody is conveniently forgetting facts such as that--
> 
> --_*some of Josquin's best loved pieces have turned out to be by composers almost nobody knew of.*_
> 
> PetrB in his glorious wisdom would now, if he were capable of consistency, condemn those pieces to the memory hole because they don't have the right name attached to them. They're not by Josquin, so they must be at best "good student pieces".
> 
> Good luck with that attitude. Most people will continue to hope there were more pieces like Beethoven's fifth and fewer pieces like those of our modern composers.


You've missed the point entirely ~ a contemporary way of speaking, in its own time, is 'fresh and original,' whether it is by Josquin or another, it was an immediate expression from within its own time: what it was not -- a derivative imitation, a pastiche of a a style once contemporary four hundred years ago.

"You can't go back home to your family, back home to your childhood, back home to romantic love, back home to a young man's dreams of glory and of fame, back home to exile, to escape to Europe and some foreign land, back home to lyricism, to singing just for singing's sake, back home to aestheticism, to one's youthful idea of 'the artist' and the all-sufficiency of 'art' and 'beauty' and 'love,' back home to the ivory tower, back home to places in the country, to the cottage in Bermude, away from all the strife and conflict of the world, back home to the father you have lost and have been looking for, back home to someone who can help you, save you, ease the burden for you, back home *to the old forms and systems of things which once seemed everlasting but which are changing all the time--back home to the escapes of Time *and Memory."
― Thomas Wolfe


----------



## Mahlerian

Pennypacker said:


> If not, would you care to offer an explanation for the absence of any Beethovens today (or the last 187 years for that matter)? Is no one good enough? Or is it the evil academia?


We need to remember that there was no Beethoven before 1770, either.

We've had plenty great composers since. And all of them wrote in a substantially original idiom, not pre-digested and intentionally blind to anything that's happened since.


----------



## aleazk

Chordalrock said:


> If composers compose more works in the classical style, they have to inevitably compose less in modern styles. There's a necessary tradeoff and I'd rather the balance shifted toward classical style is all I was saying.


ultra LOL... "the law of conservation of probability of styles"?, make a paper about it!.


----------



## Chordalrock

PetrB said:


> You've missed the point entirely


No, I haven't. It's just you failing to be logically consistent. Imitation is imitation is imitation. Historical context doesn't make any difference.


----------



## Chordalrock

aleazk said:


> ultra LOL... "the law of conservation of probability of styles"?, make a paper about it!.


You seem to be very amused by people expressing the ability to think clearly. That's good. Keep paying attention. Maybe you'll learn something.


----------



## Aramis

aleazk said:


> Oh, I knew you would say something like that. No, it's not the same. Saul just talked about "souls" and said the piece was crap because of that. I'm actually providing arguments here, if you disagree with those arguments, then post your specific answers to them...


It makes little difference because you're still imposing your uncalled vision on how modern composers should write rather than offering commentary that can help the composer write the way he wants (if you did early on, good, I'm talking about discussion that takes place on recent two pages). I won't disagree nor agree with your arguments on that matter here because it's not this thread's subject. Looking few posts back I see that Kostas found it "nice" that such discussion was caused by his piece, but having been around for some time myself I see that it's just another dead horse fest and that some "modernists" are no less agressive than the modern music haters and they can't help but to take almost every retro composition for provocation, which makes them start blowing battle call by every opportunity.


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> Sorry, I've composed modern music myself, so perhaps you were jumping to conclusions here as usual. I'm afraid you're again failing to be relevant by imagining meanings that weren't intended and disregarding the actual content of my message.
> 
> If composers compose more works in the classical style, they have to inevitably compose less in modern styles. There's a necessary tradeoff and I'd rather the balance shifted toward classical style is all I was saying.
> 
> Now talk to me about Josquin.


Josquin speaks very well for himself (as did those incorrectly identified 'as Josquin  I think you really do not get how fruitless a contribution -- other than as an academic exercise beneficial to the learning process -- it is to write as near directly in an older style as is possible.

It seems you might advocate "neoclassical" but really want it to sound more like duplicate Handel or Mozart rather than the neoclassical music of Stravinsky, Milhaud or Martinu. If I am mistaken, I do beg pardon, but there is no real interest or value in near replicate Handel or Mozart while there is innate interest and (imo) value in the Stravinsky, Milhaud or Martinu.


----------



## Mahlerian

Aramis said:


> It makes little difference because you're still imposing your uncalled vision on how modern composers should write


No he is not. There are so many ways to write today. Why not make use of _any_ of them? Why not create one's own style?

Being able to write in one's own original idiom should be the greatest freedom in the artistic world. Why call it slavery?


----------



## PetrB

Aramis said:


> It makes little difference because you're still imposing your uncalled vision on how modern composers should write rather than offering commentary that can help the composer write the way he wants (if you did early on, good, I'm talking about discussion that takes place on recent two pages). I won't disagree nor agree with your arguments on that matter here because it's not this thread's subject. Looking few posts back I see that Kostas found it "nice" that such discussion was caused by his piece, but having been around for some time myself I see that it's just another dead horse fest and that some "modernists" are no less agressive than the modern music haters and they can't help but to take almost every retro composition for provocation, which makes them start blowing battle call by every opportunity.


Well, mistakes could be readily avoided if posters of model exercise works would just call them that. Otherwise. what is anyone to think when they see a 'birth announcement' for "My New Piece?"

How about instead, "Hey, here is a piece in model antique style I wrote." -- otherwise, it seems some people really think their near academic model essay _and continuing to write that way_ is going to make them some sort of acceptable composer... because there is some unstated eagerness or hope in about every posted piece in Today's Composers.

And that is where you get the modernists* admonishing that no matter how good or clever that replicate style ditty is, you might want to essay more and further if you are in earnest pursuit of being known as 'a composer.'

There is a difference between an actor delivering the lines written by Shakespeare and the folk at a Renaissance fair and their Elizabethan era extempore speech affectations... about as good a parallel between "the real and vital thing as contemporary" vs. "contemporary pastiche" as I can think of. One is pulsating with life, the other may be slick, deft and polished, but stillborn, pure and very dead corn.

*ADD P.s. All those 'modernists' are advocating is that the imitator, instead of imitating, drop both costume and pretense and 'be their self.'*

* It is beyond me why anytime someone has been urged to write 'in a more contemporary vein' that anyone assumes it means the composer must don the latest avant-garde fashion. The only reason I think that happens is because there are a lot of retro-reactionary listeners, and a handful of retro-reactionary musicians. Some people seem truly desperate in wanting to roll the arts clocks back several hundred years or more.


----------



## Pennypacker

Mahlerian said:


> We need to remember that there was no Beethoven before 1770, either.
> 
> We've had plenty great composers since. And all of them wrote in a substantially original idiom, not pre-digested and intentionally blind to anything that's happened since.


I... know. That's what I'm... saying. Read again, will you? 

That's part of the answer to the question Chordalrock is ignoring, trying to mess with everyone's minds instead. He's right in theory, any work should be judged regardless of time and the composer's name (pretty rare, isn't it? But that's another subject). And there's definitely enough talent today to pull off a Beethoven 10th. Problem is, a great composer will never wish to copy anyone. I bet there are a dozen of students that are just on the right track to achieve that, acquiring all the necessary techniques. But they move on instead. That's why this little scenario will always be hypothetical.


----------



## Aramis

Mahlerian said:


> No he is not. There are so many ways to write today. Why not make use of any of them? Why not create one's own style?


Maybe because somebody just connects with classicism and wishes to create some compositions in that style. You've got Kostas' credo earlier on. There's no great philosophy involved. Now, I can perfectly imagine myself hearing his work performed and enjoying it, even if it sounds like twenty other XVIIIth century composers I'm never going to listen. If you can't, there's no need to act as if he would do something entirely worthless - it may seem to be in large scale of history of art, but in smaller scale it can work. Simply.

As for your freedom, everything is slavery when forced. The natural fondness of classical idiom with it's restrictions is more free than rejecting it's rules under pressure.


----------



## Mahlerian

Pennypacker said:


> I... know. That's what I'm... saying. Read again, will you?


Yeah, I realized that after writing it the first time and reworded it to be more generally directed. Sorry about that.


----------



## kostas papazafeiropoulos

Guys relax. Whoever likes it just likes it. Althought i have to say to the guys who doesn't like it "keep your strength i have a symphony to post as well." 
And to PetrB Something is called new as it was finished two moths ago. Not about the style


----------



## mmsbls

A reminder: this thread is for comments on _Serenade in E flat for winds_ and related topics - not for comments about each other. You can discuss the pros and cons of writing in a retro-style, but do not make comments about other posters (unless clearly positive).


----------



## PetrB

Aramis said:


> I can perfectly imagine myself hearing his work performed and enjoying it, _*even if it sounds like twenty other XVIIIth century composers I'm never going to listen to*_.


...which is exactly why those writing in a more replicate older style might appreciate, even if it first is a bit of a hurt, finding out that what they are working on may sound like, "_twenty other XVIIIth century composers I'm never going to listen to._"

The reason people say "_newer works in this style are not of current interest or in current demand?_"

When I say anything like it is because I assume these composers might be hoping their works do get listened to, and not as interchangeable and forgettable pieces of pastiche.

I also extend them the courtesy to think they have not posted pieces in _Today's Composers_ simply to show people they have 'made something,' but presume to assume they are hoping they made a piece of music which communicates something to the listener.


----------



## kostas papazafeiropoulos

Because i'm writing in n old style it doesn't mean that i;m not writing in my own style. I can write in my own style and only in that... It can;t be otherwise.


----------



## PetrB

kostas papazafeiropoulos said:


> Guys relax. Whoever likes it just likes it. Althought i have to say to the guys who doesn't like it "keep your strength i have a symphony to post as well."
> And to PetrB Something is called new as it was finished two moths ago. Not about the style


The semantic quibble could go on endlessly. Anything currently made is "new." Style apart, some "new" things are not at all FRESH, which is the point I wish to emphasize. 
B+ on your model style comping, C- or D+ on writing for actual instruments and players; no grade for 'original voice,' because this is a pretty good academic exercise / pastiche.

The person behind the pen (or computer) is near completely invisible, and that _is_, more than any stylistic element, what "new" in the most superlative sense means -- i.e. something, and some one, who stands distinctly apart from the others.

Right now, I hear high degree of clever, pretty deft, but blending in anonymously with the rest of the deft imitators.... like a line-up of good Elvis Imitators, with this serenade, we can not tell you from the others.

I look forward to meeting your musical self one day.

Best regards.


----------



## Chordalrock

I like the irony of people complaining about new compositions in old styles and then in the next scene listening to classic works composed in those same old styles. Dramatic juxtaposition. God has a thing for irony.


----------



## kostas papazafeiropoulos

PetrB you forgot to analyze the piece. I;m sure you didn;t see the most interesting things that you should have seen. Look more careful. Good day to you .


----------



## PetrB

kostas papazafeiropoulos said:


> PetrB you forgot to analyze the piece. I;m sure you didn;t see the most interesting things that you should have seen. Look more careful. Good day to you .


If you wish to present an analysis of your piece for those interested, please feel free to do so.

Of course you and I and many others know analysis only shows what a composer has done, and has never qualified a piece as either interesting or good: it is not what is seen, but _what is heard that counts._

I rarely use but a titch of analysis when writing my own music (and no, I will not post a piece simply because 'challenged' to do so), and am certainly not going to bother to do an analysis which is not going to 'show' anything which can not already anyway be directly heard.


----------

