Style and Composition

[OneThrow]

It’s sticking head above parapet time.

Style. We have it whether we like it or not. It comes from the choices we make.

But it is more than that. Does it come from an unwritten set of rules that we follow, consciously or unconsciously?

Language has a set of rules that allows us to converse. It allows unlimited freedom for self-expression and it allows unlimited styles of expression.

So. When someone is doing that killer track or an emotion defining cue, what is it that makes it undeniably their style and no one else’s?

Or to put it another way.
Do you think composers should be a – “freedom of imagination composer” - where chaos reigns supreme, or an – “I follow the rules composer” - where clients set the rules.

Or should the composer be none of the above?

Disclaimer
I accept no responsibility for the spelling of any of the above. It has all been thoroughly spell checked. ;)

[nikolas]

So. When someone is doing that killer track or an emotion defining cue, what is it that makes it undeniably their style and no one else’s?
Style is not owned, I think. What gives a "name" to a style, or some trick, or some orchestration idea, is who did it first and who made it well know. Everything comes for everything else. Personal filters are what create something slightly unique, or new maybe (although I'd imagine it to be completely different to create something new). Some things are 'registered' in the minds of the audience, as well as composers, from the person who first made use, or made successful use, or made them well known. The string clusters, in quarter tones, for example, seems to be attributed to Penderevski.

Style, also has to do with aesthetics of course, where is that the personal experience and filters come into play.

Don't know if it's fully on topic, the above, but I hope it was worth posting it.

Or to put it another way.
Do you think composers should be a – “freedom of imagination composer” - where chaos reigns supreme, or an – “I follow the rules composer” - where clients set the rules.

Or should the composer be none of the above?
Both? :D

It does depend on what you work on. I mean, a freelance classical composer probably has a bit more freedom than a film composer. At least I imagine so, without being too sure. On the other hand, a classical composer who's established himself in a 'genre' or a 'style' or some set aesthetic values, might find more comissions to create works of simmilar venues, rather than completely new ones. I wouldn't invite Boulez to create a classical concerto... :D

Disclaimer
I accept no responsibility for the spelling of any of the above. It has all been thoroughly spell checked. ;)
Thanks. I take full responsibility for my tpyos! :D

[OneThrow]

Thanks. I take full responsibility for my tpyos! :D

:D Typos are quite a sensitive thing for me at the moment.

[nickysnd]

Style.

We have it whether we like it or not. It comes from the choices we make.
I'd say it comes from the expectations of an audience.

But it is more than that. Does it come from an unwritten set of rules that we follow, consciously or unconsciously?
Yes, style is the artistic expression of a set of laws, or a system. It has everything to do with form, and little to do with content.

Language has a set of rules that allows us to converse. It allows unlimited freedom for self-expression and it allows unlimited styles of expression.
Yes, languages is what should be used for any kind of communication -- and styles are dialects, idioms, also all sort of mannerisms.

So. When someone is doing that killer track or an emotion defining cue, what is it that makes it undeniably their style and no one else’s?
"Someone's" style? Style can't be personal. "Personal style" is an abuse and an oxymoron, like "frozen fire." Non-conformist, ex-centric, odd-mannered, are the correct meanings of "personal style." Styles are mannerisms, they can be only general.

If the question was -- what gives a composer a recognizable voice even if he never goes out of style, then my answer is: his sincerity, honesty, authenticity. See the cases of all great composers.

Or to put it another way.
Do you think composers should be a – “freedom of imagination composer” - where chaos reigns supreme, or an – “I follow the rules composer” - where clients set the rules.
Composers do not create anything new. They just compose and recompose old patterns. When they do it so that fits a style, they are good composers. When they distort them patterns, be it either out of dyslexia or for the sake of self expression, they are bad composers.

Or should the composer be none of the above?
A composer should serve. What should he serve? The music, an idea, an audience/client. The three of them, always.

Bottom line:
Styles are conventions. Ordinary people use them to comfort and fool each other. Composers use them conventions to tell the truth. It's what makes them extra-ordinary. By composers I mean good composers.

[OneThrow]

Yes, style is the artistic expression of a set of laws, or a system. It has everything to do with form, and nothing to do with the content.



Why do you say style has nothing to do with content? For example do you see style as a set of rules applied after the fact?

EDIT

Is style an affectation, more show than substance?

[nickysnd]

1. Nothing was an improper word, changed it.

2. No, style is using conventions, which don't come after, they're pre-established.

3. If using verbal conventions when communicating is an "affectation, more show than substance," then yes, style is precisely that. Style has nothing to do with content, or next to nothing. It's all about form.

[OneThrow]

So when talking about what is recognisably the work of a particular composer you wouldn't talk about his/her style you would talk about his/her personal voice. Am I correct?

Meaning that a composer working in different styles could still be recognisable.

[nickysnd]

So when talking about what is recognisably the work of a particular composer you wouldn't talk about his/her style you would talk about his/her personal voice. Am I correct?

Meaning that a composer working in different styles could still be recognisable.
Please don't turn it to semantics, "voice" was a metaphor, what I meant was "character," "personality," something that shines through Mozart's piano sonatas, for example. He uses the same conventions as Haydn and Beethoven, yet each of those three composers has his distinct "voice," while still keeping with the style.

As for composers working in different styles, Stravinsky is one example that I can think of, but in my opinion he unfortunately has lost his "voice" after his first three Russian ballets. Also, nothing remarkable has come out of his atonal-serialist and neo-classical long ventures.

Actually, John Williams is a good example of a composer successfully adapting to different styles: romantic, impressionist, jazz (Catch Me If You Can), minimalist (A.I., Minority Report), even avantgarde (Close Encounters...) But I can't say that I could recognize his "voice" through all those styles, firstly because filmscoring is not about "personal voices" but about serving the film.

I know why styles are important. But why is "personal voice" important? Would you like to be pigeonhole labeled, typecasted? JW's approach makes more sense, when it comes to professional composers, don't you think?

[OneThrow]

Please don't turn it to semantics, "voice" was a metaphor, what I meant was "character," "personality," something that shines through Mozart's piano sonatas, for example. He uses the same conventions as Haydn and Beethoven, yet each of those three composers has his distinct "voice," while still keeping with the style.


I am surprised you think that I am turning to semantics. I am at the moment exploring an idea. I think what you are describing as voice I am describing as style. It may be that I have to redifine and clarify, that is what exchange of ideas is all about.


Actually, John Williams is a good example of a composer successfully adapting to different styles: romantic, impressionist, jazz (Catch Me If You Can), minimalist (A.I., Minority Report), even avantgarde (Close Encounters...) But I can't say that I could recognize his "voice" through all those styles, firstly because filmscoring is not about "personal voices" but about serving the film.


I can see here that there is a variation in what I am trying to express.

Indeed it is the job of the film composer to write the type of music that the film demands, that the director demands or whoever pays the piper demands. Except that he can only produce what his imagination and experience allows.


I know why styles are important. But why is "personal voice" important? Would you like to be pigeonhole labeled, typecasted? JW's approach makes more sense, when it comes to professional composers, don't you think?

It isn't typecasting to be recognised as who you are. We all make musical choices when composing, but we are defined by those choices. I think we have an individual voice whether we like it or not.

The John Williams example is good. He wrote the scores for "Star Wars", "Superman" and "Indiana Jones", but that didn't limit him. If his career had stopped at that point how would he have been defined? But it wasn't, he went on to write the other scores you described which were totally different. He wasn't limited by what he had written before. He wanted to explore other musical areas. The other films allowed him to do that. Which is why I asked the question about style coming after the fact.

As you can see my arguments are rather confused and your's are clearly focused. It is great that you have taken the time to debate in those circumstances. As always your replies are thought provoking.

[paulwr]

It’s sticking head above parapet time.


Do you think composers should be a – “freedom of imagination composer” - where chaos reigns supreme, or an – “I follow the rules composer” - where clients set the rules.

Or should the composer be none of the above?


Well, the more you have under your belt, the more you can pull out of your hat........

-Paul

[nickysnd]

Indeed it is the job of the film composer to write the type of music that the film demands, that the director demands or whoever pays the piper demands. Except that he can only produce what his imagination and experience allows.
Yes, a composer can "only" produce whatever he is able to produce, but why should one recognize a "personal voice" behind all the productions of one composer? I can't see Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Catch Me If You Can as coming from one "voice."

My point is: "personal voice" is not important. Whether it is "recognized" or not, that's irrelevant. A composer should NOT serve himself and his voice, he should only serve three things: the music, an idea, and an audience/client.

You didn't address why "personal voice" is important for a composer, and what "personal voice" is important for. IMO, "personal voice" is important only for primadonnas like Placido Domingo and Mariah Carey. This kind individuals have a deep need to be recognized. Why should a composer need to be recognized though? You seem to imply that they are recognizable by default and against their will -- and some are indeed, but that's not the norm. People may recognize personal idiosyncrasies, but idiosyncrasies are not desirable. Composers are imaginative people who know how to combine things so that they appear different each time. They are alchemists who turn lead into gold and old onto new. They are not primadonnas.

Oscar Wilde said something like a good artistic production hides the artist and reveals the art.

[V o n h ö g e n]

Actually, John Williams is a good example of a composer successfully adapting to different styles: romantic, impressionist, jazz (Catch Me If You Can), minimalist (A.I., Minority Report), even avantgarde (Close Encounters...) But I can't say that I could recognize his "voice" through all those styles, firstly because filmscoring is not about "personal voices" but about serving the film.
(...)
I know why styles are important. But why is "personal voice" important? Would you like to be pigeonhole labeled, typecasted? JW's approach makes more sense, when it comes to professional composers, don't you think?


I couldn't agree more, although there are even better examples of JW's stylistic versatility than the ones you mention. For example, he scored a TV film called "Jane Eyre" in late 19th century style, around the same time he wrote some highly experimental music for the movie "Images" with percussionist Stomu Yamashta. Both scores were written years before Close Encounters, Star Wars, etc. and seem to have been forgotten by the general public.

I thought it would be nice to share a few John Williams quotes with you, taken from an interview with Irwin Bazelon in 1975 (which was still the Pre-Star Wars era). Here you go:

IB: (...) do you think one has to be a composer to write film music?

JW: No. Not in the sense I think you and I would define the term "composer". I think one could take a primitive with pie tins and bows and arrows and good recording equipment and make a wonderfully effective sound compilation of a mélange of noises. It might be very effective dramatically if it was timed correctly, if it suited the style of the film; if all these things seemed wedded to the grain or fabric of the film, I think it could be wonderful. Some people say this is composing, this is a composer - it may be, I don't know. But not in the kind of European, eighteenth-, nineteenth-, early twentieth-century sense of the word "composer" and the skills which that would designate.

JW: Some people have wonderful senses of aural design - sometimes better than composers, better than highly crafted and trained and skilled composers. There are some working in films effectively. I think Quincy Jones is a wonderfully gifted man who has in his best work demonstrated a very keen ear. Perhaps not so much for composition in the academic or legitimate or serious sense, but composition in the sense of putting aural effects and images and noises together that make dramatic sense.

IB: I'm a great believer in writing your own sounds, even though we all know there are dramatic functions involved in films, and not every film has the excitement of another. Some are very prosaic and don't call for it.

JW: Right. Some films, on that point, seem to demand tonality.

JW: (...) I feel this about directors: the best directors are musical; I think part of what they do is musical. (...) My complaint about them is that they listen to a fairly narrow range of music. Most of them don't have very broad tastes where music is concerned, so their picture may require a kind of music (or I may think it requires a kind of music) with which they are totally unfamiliar, and there's some education necessary there, and that's always dangerous. You're trampling on egos right away. But I think the better they are, the more musical they are. Once in a while, there's an Eisenstein, you know, an immensely cultured man who knows music (...).


- Jerome Vonhögen

[dgrm44]

So. When someone is doing that killer track or an emotion defining cue, what is it that makes it undeniably their style and no one else’s?


Its the same thing that lets me know its a Greenday song or a Danny Elfman composition by the 4th Bar. Artist develop tools as they progress. These tools become staples that we all recognize. Typically when musicians throw out their tools and try to use new tools that they are unfamilair with you end up with work like Def Leppard's X CD.

[nickysnd]

Lots of food for thought in that interview, Jerome. Thanks! JW is another proof that good composers are also good thinkers. IMO, music has a lot more to do with thoughts than it has to do with emotions.

But I'd like to pick a little bit on this one:
the film composer ... can only produce what his imagination and experience allows.
That sounds a bit misleading, as if imagination and experience are limiting factors. On the contrary! There is no limit to human imagination. And a composer's experience, self-education, world-view, way of thinking, these are things that give sense and coherence to imagination -- they structure it and gives it a shape that would work for the others.

So, imagination and experience are not limiting -- they "only" allow an infinity of beautiful and enlightening things. That's what good composers produce. Death is composers' only limit. Good composers are "immortal" in a sense, but sometimes I wish guys like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven would literally live and compose forever. I mean, c'mon, Mozart dies at 35?? What's this? And Bach, lives only 65 years?!?

[OneThrow]

nickysnd

You wrote this:

You didn't address why "personal voice" is important for a composer, and what "personal voice" is important for.

So I go back to this:

So when talking about what is recognisably the work of a particular composer you wouldn't talk about his/her style you would talk about his/her personal voice. Am I correct?


My 2 posts following your original post were basically questions. I quote the second here because it is important. Your answer to this has to be "no". But you didn't say no.

you then posted this:

... "voice" was a metaphor, what I meant was "character," "personality," something that shines through Mozart's piano sonatas, for example. He uses the same conventions as Haydn and Beethoven, yet each of those three composers has his distinct "voice," while still keeping with the style.


I agree with that.

I do not like the term "personal voice" even though I coined it so to speak. It was part of a question which I thought you had answered in the affirmative in some shape or form. I was trying to establish common ground so that this debate doesn't get taken up a blind alley. "Personal voice" is a blind alley.

In response to my orignal proposition you posted:


If the question was -- what gives a composer a recognizable voice even if he never goes out of style, then my answer is: his sincerity, honesty, authenticity. See the cases of all great composers.


You used the words "reconizable voice". Effectively you have framed the question for this thread better than I.

If I were to defend "personal voice" and I am not going to, but if I were, the bits I have quoted from your posts would do it.

You equally don't like "personal voice" and you ascribe to it something completely different. I want to debate with you, yes, but I don't want to share similar opinions and find myself on the opposite side of the fence. (Does that make any sense?)
HOKETUS where are you? Someone else has made me think. Twice in one forum, that has to be a record.;)

(I have only read up to post 11.)

[OneThrow]

So, imagination and experience are not limiting -- they "only" allow an infinity of beautiful and enlightening things. That's what good composers produce. Death is composers' only limit. Good composers are "immortal" in a sense, but sometimes I wish guys like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven would literally live and compose forever. I mean, c'mon, Mozart dies at 35?? What's this? And Bach, lives only 65 years?!?

nickysnd

You've taken my words and twisted them into something entirely wonderful. :) What are you doing man?

See that (now) tiny inscription at that bottom of this post, the signature, I think that's what it is called. That's what the imagination can do. And you don't have to be a "genius" for it to happen. But when you are the results are usually pretty good (!!!!!!UNDERSTATEMENT ALERT!!!!!).

;)

EDIT

Have a good one.

RE EDIT

That's enough fawning praise for one day!!
Sorry sir.
Stick to the topic.
Yes Sir.

[nikolas]

...But I'd like to pick a little bit on this one:

" Originally Posted by OneThrow View Post
the film composer ... can only produce what his imagination and experience allows."

That sounds a bit misleading, as if imagination and experience are limiting factors. On the contrary! There is no limit to human imagination. And a composer's experience, self-education, world-view, way of thinking, these are things that give sense and coherence to imagination -- they structure it and gives it a shape that would work for the others.
I agree with... both takes I think. I understand them, at least. History has proven (with everything written until today), that 99.9% persons in the earth have 99.9% limited imagination. It takes very 'special' circumstances to do something beyond your imagination, or to stretch your imagination anyways.

So, imagination and experience are not limiting -- they "only" allow an infinity of beautiful and enlightening things. That's what good composers produce. Death is composers' only limit. Good composers are "immortal" in a sense, but sometimes I wish guys like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven would literally live and compose forever. I mean, c'mon, Mozart dies at 35?? What's this? And Bach, lives only 65 years?!?
heh.... I wonder if Mozart would create the same masterpieces at the age of... 80. I mean it as a serious question really, not teasing, not nothing!

And of course imagination has it's limits and this is why history progresses in small steps. You don't get a composer in the 1780s producing hip hop out of nowhere! But you do get the occasional '20-30 years ahead of his time', kind of thing.

As for style, I agree with nickysnd, it is attributed by the audience rather than anyone else (audience being a mixture of the audience and experts, composers, musicologists, etc, right? ;))

[PaulR]

This kind individuals have a deep need to be recognized. Why should a composer need to be recognized though?

I totally agree. I don't even like being recognized by my own family - or people I owe money to either.

[nickysnd]

And of course imagination has it's limits
No, imagination has only the limits one clumsily imposes to it. Imagination is one of the best human quality, a driving force that improves and expands reality. Where the material nature hits the wall of its own laws, the human spirit breaks through and takes over. Call me nuts, but it is my belief that, in a distant future, that will literally happen.

and this is why history progresses in small steps. You don't get a composer in the 1780s producing hip hop out of nowhere! But you do get the occasional '20-30 years ahead of his time', kind of thing.
What small steps are you talking about? You can't be serious by mentioning hip-hop as progress in comparison to the Viennese classicism. :p Actually, the term progress doesn't apply to art, is completely inadequate. Tools and science may get "better" over time, but good art is timeless. Also, you cannot rank music. You can't say that Romanticism is better than Baroque. Or to say that the 20th century music is better than 18th century music, that would be nonsense. History? Who cares about history? We are talking music here. We are composers, right? Let the musicologists trouble themselves with history. (you can only imagine the way I pronounced the word history, somewhere close to "hystery")

Also -- Bach, Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven were not "20-30 years ahead of their time." They were of their own time and out of time, at the same time.;) Their music is timeless and beyond ranking and comparison. Being born after them, that doesn't make you (or anyone) a better composer than them. You are of course better off by knowing their music, but in no way will that make you (me, etc.) better than them. Those guys, they have set up the absolute limits for us as composers, limits that we can't even come close to, never mind "progress." Consider yourself lucky that, as a composer, you have a front row seat to "see" better and understand them better than musically-uneducated people. But in terms of quality and value, we can't top those guys. Instead, we are blessed to live in the light of their music. So, sorry for your progress, it doesn't exist.

Now, imagination has no limits in producing new reflections of the same ideas and new combinations of the same patterns -- but one can't outrun infinity. That's where those composers have moved in. They now live upstairs at the top floor. Have you seen Beethoven Lives Upstairs? It's a Emmy award winner Canadian short, very good film.

[nickysnd]

I totally agree. I don't even like being recognized by my own family - or people I owe money to either.
:D

How about people who owe YOU money?

[PaulR]

Being born after them, that doesn't make you (or anyone) a better composer than them.

Absolutely correct.

Take this as an example. The Romans and their culture and invention. People and places like Horace, Michelangelo, The Vatican, Leonardo da Vinci, Caravaggio, Scarlatti, Vivaldi, Ferrari, the Mafia - and many, many more over 2000 plus years.

And what do they wind up with today? The Italian football team.

Watching the national Italian football team play what can only be loosely termed as football, is like watching anti-matter. If Caravaggio could paint a picture of the Italian football team - it would be a picture of total despair and negativity.



:D

[OneThrow]

Also -- Bach, Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven were not "20-30 years ahead of their time." They were of their own time and out of time, at the same time.;) Their music is timeless and beyond ranking and comparison. Being born after them, that doesn't make you (or anyone) a better composer than them. You are of course better off by knowing their music, but in no way will that make you (me, etc.) better than them. Those guys, they have set up the absolute limits for us as composers, limits that we can't even come close to, never mind "progress."

I take it you're a fan.;)

Watching the national Italian football team play what can only be loosely termed as football, is like watching anti-matter. If Caravaggio could paint a picture of the Italian football team - it would be a picture of total despair and negativity.



:D

Not such a good match last night eh?:)

[nikolas]

No, imagination has only the limits one clumsily imposes to it. Imagination is one of the best human quality, a driving force that improves and expands reality. Where the material nature hits the wall of its own laws, the human spirit breaks through and takes over. Call me nuts, but it is my belief that, in a distant future, that will literally happen.

We are probably talking about something different. I can't say I find it greatly imaginative to create, yet another... sonata (for example, as hip hop was certainly a silly example and nothing else. I don't use examples as arguments), in the same tonality, with the same form. I'm not denying beauty, or amazingness (!) to any extend, but not sure if it takes an infinite deal of imagination to create Sonata No. 28 after having composed another 27 before that.

What small steps are you talking about? You can't be serious by mentioning hip-hop as progress in comparison to the Viennese classicism. :p Actually, the term progress doesn't apply to art, is completely inadequate. Tools and science may get "better" over time, but good art is timeless. Also, you cannot rank music. You can't say that Romanticism is better than Baroque. Or to say that the 20th century music is better than 18th century music, that would be nonsense. History? Who cares about history? We are talking music here. We are composers, right? Let the musicologists trouble themselves with history. (you can only imagine the way I pronounced the word history, somewhere close to "hystery")

Also -- Bach, Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven were not "20-30 years ahead of their time." They were of their own time and out of time, at the same time.;) Their music is timeless and beyond ranking and comparison. Being born after them, that doesn't make you (or anyone) a better composer than them. You are of course better off by knowing their music, but in no way will that make you (me, etc.) better than them. Those guys, they have set up the absolute limits for us as composers, limits that we can't even come close to, never mind "progress." Consider yourself lucky that, as a composer, you have a front row seat to "see" better and understand them better than musically-uneducated people. But in terms of quality and value, we can't top those guys. Instead, we are blessed to live in the light of their music. So, sorry for your progress, it doesn't exist.

Now, imagination has no limits in producing new reflections of the same ideas and new combinations of the same patterns -- but one can't outrun infinity. That's where those composers have moved in. They now live upstairs at the top floor. Have you seen Beethoven Lives Upstairs? It's a Emmy award winner Canadian short, very good film.
history progress. As in how time progresses...

If you take any personal comments and pronouns, I agree with the above! Even if not comparing or saying anything about better, or best would still wield Bach, Mozart, etc, in the above floor by default... :) (as in, I don't believe in better or best, but you have to agree that there are some people, some names, some works that you simply have to wash your mouth in order to talk about them! :D:D:D)

[nickysnd]

I take it you're a fan.;)
You may call it "fan" although that term doesn't say much. Also, I feel sorry for the one who is not a "fan."

I can't say I find it greatly imaginative to create, yet another... sonata ... not sure if it takes an infinite deal of imagination to create Sonata No. 28 after having composed another 27 before that.
Sonata is just a silly term and no.27 is just a number. Forget sonata and numbers and listen to the music. Besides, your statement calls for a challenge: if you think you have the imagination required to compose a "sonata" worth standing near a "sonata" composed by Mozart or Beethoven, go ahead, do it, I would be more than happy to listen to it. :)

But, you are just kidding, right? You surely know that composers don't compose preludes, symphonies, sonatas, etc. Only musicologists, publishers, and laymen fall for that. We are composers and we know that music has nothing to do with those silly names. I mean -- you think the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony is "the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony?" Of course you don't think that, you're only kidding, for sure.

The only word that counts when comes to music is the composer's name. Everything else is just a catalog term, or a musicologist's snag.

[nikolas]

Sonata is just a silly term and no.27 is just a number. Forget sonata and numbers and listen to the music. Besides, your statement calls for a challenge: if you think you have the imagination required to compose a "sonata" worth standing near a "sonata" composed by Mozart or Beethoven, go ahead, do it, I would be more than happy to hear it. :)
Why do you ensist on trying to compaire things, or even worst trying to put me in a position that I certainly show no interest? Who said anything about trying to see which is "worthy of standing next to" the x work of the past, etc?

Sonata is a form and nothing more, and I'm pretty sure that Beethoven, for example, did compose in set forms and not just sat there only for people to come afterwards and name them sonatas. Prokofiev as well, to name a tiny bit more recent example.

I don't care for a challenge and my comment does not call for anything at all!

And most above all, you keep mentioning compairing things, composers, and pieces of music/art which has nothing to do with anything, and you mentioned not believing in such silly things...

But, you're just kidding, right? You surely know that composers don't compose preludes, symphonies, sonatas, etc. Only musicologists, publishers, and laymen fall for that. We are composers and we know that music has nothing to do with those silly names. I mean -- you think the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony is "the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony?" Of course you don't think that, you're only kidding, for sure.

The only word that counts when comes to music is the composer's name. Everything else is just a catalog term, or a musicologist's snag.
Don't know really. And no, I'm not kidding, nor I consider opinions to be facts! ;)

I'm sure that people compose with forms in their minds, as well. It's one of the things to keep in mind. Do you suppose that someone sits on the piano, works for... a week (an example, don't sit on that), and... whoops there comes a sonata? Because I do know, "for sure" (from biographies, and letters anyways, which is as close as one can get really with dead composers), that Prokofiev did indeed mention "working on a new sonata". This sounds pretty definite to me...

Leaving examples, or anything aside, can we define "imagination" on music, or composition to carry on? Otherwise we'll go around in circles.

[OneThrow]

You may call it "fan" although that term doesn't say much. Also, I feel sorry for the one who is not a "fan."



I would call it a gross understatement, and I would hope you accept it in the spirit in which it was intended.:)

[nickysnd]

I don't care for a challenge and my comment does not call for anything at all!
Here:
I can't say I find it greatly imaginative to create, yet another... sonata ... not sure if it takes an infinite deal of imagination to create Sonata No. 28 after having composed another 27 before that.
You don't find that greatly imaginative, eh? Well, that doesn't call, but literally SHOUTS for a challenge. You think it's a piece of cake to do a sonata at Beethoven's level of effectiveness? Of course, to write "yet another sonata" is no big deal. The point is to write music (sonata or whatever) at the level those guys were doing it. More clearly, my point was/is: unlike you, I think that it does take a great deal of imagination to write music (sonata or whatever) at that level.

Composing music is the easiest thing on earth. Composing good music is the hardest.

Who cares for "sonatas," BTW? Forms are part of composers' kitchen. What's important is the dishes, nobody cares about what the chef was doing in the kitchen. (sonatas, potatas, etc.:D)

[nikolas]

Look Nickysnd,

Poof.... I make a post and you create all this debate about nothing. You want to assume things, go ahead, asusmption is the mother of fuck ups, no?

You want to think that Beethoven is the only person who wrote sonatas? I could be talking about... Scarlati, or Haydn, or Mozart. :D

I asked you to define the term "imagination" and what you mean because we would go around in circles, which we now do.

BTW, you mentioned sonatas and started talking about them. I used them as an example and nothing more.

Now, if you are to carry on, don't come back to me about personal comments (since you are challenging me, personally, and using phrases like "unlike you"). Don't try to mention anything about assumptions, cause you are simply assuming a great deal from very little and I have specifically said what I mean (which you chose to bypass (regarding progress (in history) maybe)). Don't put words in my mouth cause I don't do that and I've never said any of the things you'd like me to have said.

Finally read this:

We are probably talking about something different. I can't say I find it greatly imaginative to create, yet another... sonata (for example, as hip hop was certainly a silly example and nothing else. I don't use examples as arguments), in the same tonality, with the same form. I'm not denying beauty, or amazingness (!) to any extend, but not sure if it takes an infinite deal of imagination to create Sonata No. 28 after having composed another 27 before that.
...I'm not denying beautfy, or amazingness (! <-to provide a hint that there might be a tpyo in there), to any extend..., but not sure if it takes an infinite deal of imagination to...

I'm still quized on how I'm challenging anything when I mention beauty and amazingness (!)

[DallasComposer]

IMHO, I think it’s a great question but streaming off a bit for what the OP was asking, at least the way I interpret it. One very memorable experience I had that really hit me about what ‘personal’ style is was way back in August ’92. I was watching the opening ceremonies of the Barcelona Summer Olympics (big fan of Olympic opening ceremonies) and listening to the music and the various performances. I knew nothing about or who wrote the music but something about it sounded familiar, not as if I had heard it before but something about the melody, the string voicing’s, ‘the style’ hit me. I couldn’t put my finger on it, then they announced that the music was composed by Ryuichi Sakamoto and then BAM! it hit me, of course! That is the way he writes, albeit this was a big orchestral piece but very distinctively his ‘style’. So even in his piano works, pop stuff and film scores (Wuthering Heights is a good example) I can hear ‘Ryuichi’, IMO very few artists/composers achieve that. No judgment being made on it, just my take on it.

If your interested...

Barcelona Summer Olympics music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SThxTKQ-nvY

Wuthering Heights Trio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69in1Mztn78

[nickysnd]

As Simon Cowell would put it: "What the hell was that?"

[V o n h ö g e n]

Take this as an example. The Romans and their culture and invention. People and places like Horace, Michelangelo, The Vatican, Leonardo da Vinci, Caravaggio, Scarlatti, Vivaldi, Ferrari, the Mafia - and many, many more over 2000 plus years.

And what do they wind up with today? The Italian football team.



Ok, let me think this over for a while...

So, we have the Romans and their culture and invention. People and places like Justinian the Great, Byzantium, the Aya Sofia, the Roman Hippodrome, the Cistern Basilica and the Roman Aquaduct, the Castle of Seven Towers - and many, many more.

And what do they wind up with today? The Turkish football team.

Is that what you meant to say?
:rolleyes:


HOKETUS where are you? Someone else has made me think. Twice in one forum, that has to be a record.;)

Don't worry, I'm here. :) I was busy all day, working on my personal and recognizable style. ;)

- Jerome Vonhögen

[OneThrow]

DallasComposer:

Liked the Wuthering Heights Trio. Not sure about the other one.


Ok, let me think this over for a while...

So, we have the Romans and their culture and invention. People and places like Justinian the Great, Byzantium, the Aya Sofia, the Roman Hippodrome, the Cistern Basilica and the Roman Aquaduct, the Castle of Seven Towers - and many, many more.

And what do they wind up with today? The Turkish football team.

Is that what you meant to say?
:rolleyes:




Don't worry, I'm here. :) I was busy all day, working on my personal and recognizable style. ;)

- Jerome Vonhögen

:D:D You don't mind if I chuckle in this thread of madness.

[OneThrow]

Refreshments are served in the cafeteria. In the meantime the local group will keep you entertained.;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exbxo07WEHE

[Counterpoint]

What small steps are you talking about? You can't be serious by mentioning hip-hop as progress in comparison to the Viennese classicism. :p Actually, the term progress doesn't apply to art, is completely inadequate. Tools and science may get "better" over time, but good art is timeless. Also, you cannot rank music. You can't say that Romanticism is better than Baroque. Or to say that the 20th century music is better than 18th century music, that would be nonsense. History? Who cares about history? We are talking music here. We are composers, right? Let the musicologists trouble themselves with history. (you can only imagine the way I pronounced the word history, somewhere close to "hystery")

Actually Nikolas is perfectly correct in using the word "progress". It doesn't always mean "improvement", but merely that things change from one state to another.

Also, an individual can feel free to say that X music is better than Y music. That's an opinion which can neither be proven nor disproven.

Also -- Bach, Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven were not "20-30 years ahead of their time." They were of their own time and out of time, at the same time.;) Their music is timeless and beyond ranking and comparison. Being born after them, that doesn't make you (or anyone) a better composer than them. You are of course better off by knowing their music, but in no way will that make you (me, etc.) better than them. Those guys, they have set up the absolute limits for us as composers, limits that we can't even come close to, never mind "progress." Consider yourself lucky that, as a composer, you have a front row seat to "see" better and understand them better than musically-uneducated people. But in terms of quality and value, we can't top those guys. Instead, we are blessed to live in the light of their music. So, sorry for your progress, it doesn't exist.

In terms of the actual appreciation of their music, most composers are "ahead of their time". Even the "great composers" had plenty of detractors in their own time who criticized their music because it was different than the music that came before it.

All of this is subjective. I know professional musicians who dislike Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven, and I also know plenty of those "musically-uneducated" people who like them just fine. Just because one person puts them up on a pedestal doesn't mean everyone else must as well.

Do we even really know what their music really sounds like? Do we have any 300+ year olds or people with time machines who can say that they attended a Bach performance? How do we even know these pieces are being performed properly, "as intended"? How much vibrato was being used? How long were the performers instructed to hold the last note in a phrase?

Now, imagination has no limits in producing new reflections of the same ideas and new combinations of the same patterns -- but one can't outrun infinity. That's where those composers have moved in. They now live upstairs at the top floor.

There's nothing "infinite" about the music of those composers. They all worked within a fixed music system and with a limited set of instruments.

It's a little bit ridiculous to presume that nobody can equal or surpass the great composers. The fact is, they were just people like the rest of us. Isn't it a bit weird to put a cutoff date sometime after Beethoven and say "This is the best we can achieve"? Well what's the point then? Why would anyone continue to compose if this alleged perfection has already been achieved? Sorry for your perfection, it does not exist.

Have you seen Beethoven Lives Upstairs? It's a Emmy award winner Canadian short, very good film.

Hmm, I'll have to look for that one. Might be interesting. :)

Cheers,

- Matt

[Counterpoint]

As Simon Cowell would put it: "What the hell was that?"

To answer Simon Cowell, "It must have been the owls."

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/owls/

[A.Leung]

Intersting the JUDGE should be mentioned... Hmmm...

[nickysnd]

Intersting the JUDGE should be mentioned... Hmmm...
Nobody mentioned the JUDGE except you. So, what are you precisely saying when mentioning the JUDGE? Also, what is in it that you find interesting?

POSTER X:
As Bugs Bunny would say: "What's up, doc?"

POSTER Y:
Intersting the RABBIT should be mentioned... Hmmm...


That sounds a bit paranoid to me.

FWIW, the use of Simon Cowell as the JUDGE's avatar was kinda silly IMO.

[OneThrow]

FWIW (I think I know this one), there are no Judges in this thread only contributors with valued opinions and each one is more than capable of expressing those opinions. And long may it continue.

I now spell check most of my posts. It slows down the writing a little, but it makes me feel better.:)

EDIT

Should the real Simon Cowell wish to make a contribution then it would liven up the debate no end :D.

But for fake ones there is always ADMIN!!!!!!!!! :eek: Need I say more. Don't need owls.

[nickysnd]

Actually Nikolas is perfectly correct in using the word "progress". It doesn't always mean "improvement", but merely that things change from one state to another.
Oh, I didn't know that progress doesn't always mean improvement. Then I take that everything that comes later and is different, then it's progress, right? Even decline is progress, for it comes later and it's different, no? What do the all-knowing semantics say about these matters? (I won't use emoticons, but you may imagine them all over the place...)

Also, an individual can feel free to say that X music is better than Y music. That's an opinion which can neither be proven nor disproven..
Of course, one is free to say that hip-hop is progress in comparison to Viennese classicism, and that Snoop Doggy Dogg is better than Beethoven. Also, yes -- there's nothing here but beliefs and opinions, no objective facts, only subjectivity. Therefore, anything can be said, and everything has the same value of truth. Is that correct? Only that, when everything has the same value of truth, the truth is not present. Also, you are advocating that our own delusions should show respect towards others' delusions, right?

In terms of the actual appreciation of their music, most composers are "ahead of their time".
That's just a fancy, narrow, and hollow expression. Those composers were actually ahead of any time. Their productions were of their own times yet timeless, at the same time.

Even the "great composers" had plenty of detractors in their own time who criticized their music because it was different than the music that came before it.
There are always detractors, whether it's "different" or "same." So what? Detractors and different, what's with that? Beethoven music was not only "different," it was simply good music. Or, it was simply music. You can't compare Beethoven's music with anything else, it's in a league of its own. Same about Bach. And Mozart. And a few others.

All of this is subjective. I know professional musicians who dislike Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven, and I also know plenty of those "musically-uneducated" people who like them just fine. Just because one person puts them up on a pedestal doesn't mean everyone else must as well.
I didn't put anyone on any pedestal. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven were individuals spiritually living in worlds that the rest of us can only have glimpses of. That's precisely why their productions cannot be surpassed. Pedestal? That's a metaphor for high, yes? As for me, I was talking about the farthest "place" a human being can reach. I wouldn't call that -- pedestal.

Also, "subjective"? By all means! Objectivity is meaningless when it comes to music. Also, you are correct, one can't prove-disprove anything about music. Music is beyond silly things like proof, approval, etc. Also, of course I know that not everyone can appreciate the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and the like. Some are incapable. Some don't even try. Some try but don't put enough heart and brains into it. A pity.

Do we even really know what their music really sounds like? Do we have any 300+ year olds or people with time machines who can say that they attended a Bach performance? How do we even know these pieces are being performed properly, "as intended"? How much vibrato was being used? How long were the performers instructed to hold the last note in a phrase?
Don't confuse music with its interpretation. The map is not the territory. Music is not what you hear from one player or another. Music is understanding and feeling what a composer wanted to express. And that happens when you really attend to it. Music doesn't necessarily need to be played. It sounds thousands times better when you read the score. I mean when really reading it, because the score can be misleading too -- you may think it's the territory, while it is only the map.

There's nothing "infinite" about the music of those composers. They all worked within a fixed music system and with a limited set of instruments.
I can see that you talk, cold-minded, from an almost scientific position. I can't talk like that about music. I am sort of heat-minded when it comes to music. Actually, I doubt that it is proper to talk about music at all, but when we do it, I think we should assume that words only have metaphorical values. And that may create misinterpretations, unfortunately, for words are often failing us. For example, when I say "infinite" I don't mean it in the arithmetical sense, but in a poetic sense. Good music has infinite dimensions to it, both in emotional profundity and in spiritual height. I would ad a "lateral" unlimited dimension of thought, but I'm not sure you'll get what I mean by "musical thoughts." Good music truly is infinite to me, there is literally no limit whatsoever to it. Music both expands the universe and populates it with worlds of meaning growing out of the unexpected.

It's a little bit ridiculous to presume that nobody can equal or surpass the great composers.
I would say it is ridiculous to presume that one can grow himself wings and fly like a bee.

(Did you know that we don't even know how a bee flies?)

The fact is, they were just people like the rest of us.
A very comforting thought, isn't it? Unfortunately your "fact" is highly delusional. A man is not the flesh and bones and tissues imbued with water. Again, the map is not the territory. A human being is a spiritual entity. Some are better "entities" than others. Also, music is an aristocracy, you can't apply democratic thinking to it, just as well as you can't apply scientific talking to it.

Isn't it a bit weird to put a cutoff date sometime after Beethoven and say "This is the best we can achieve"?
No, not "we," I never said that. I said something like: this is the best that can be achieved in terms of music. The limit. Which is placed at "plus infinity." Which, in turn, makes it un-limited. But you can reach an infinite number of infinities before reaching the infinity of Bach, which is un-reach-able by its nature. It's contradictory, I know, and I'm sorry I can't put it better, for it makes perfect sense to me. BTW, have you read Jacques Derrida's "Aporias"? A little book of 80 pages, nicely translated into English but absolutely delightful in French. I highly recommend it anyways. It's about limits, truth, and contradictions. You will probably need some time though, I took me like 1 hour per page the first time I read it. Very dense. An enlightening reading, worth the time and pain.

Well what's the point then? Why would anyone continue to compose if this alleged perfection has already been achieved?
Consider this analogy: There is the Sun. We, the planets are rolling around it, we take light and warmth from it, we raise and nurture our little life-forms by using the Sun's radiant energy. Back in time, we have all emerged from the Sun. It is our root, our link with the past, our source in the present, and the springboard to our future. That is -- if we accept to be planets. We can turn our back to the Sun and become asteroids, meteorites, whatever they're called. Be free, the universe is a large hole to travel through. Only that that's kind of aimless and a meteorite's life often ends by making a small scratch on the surface of a planet. Or, if big enough, an asteroid can destroy that planet. It's either making insignificant scars, or destroy. I wouldn't like to do that. I prefer to gravitate around the multiple star system of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and a few other Suns.

Is your question: why should one want to attain the level of perfection? Dunno. All I know is: reaching that level means to burn. Why should one want to become one with the Sun? Answer that and you'll have the answer to your previous question.

Sorry for your perfection, it does not exist.
Actually I didn't address perfection in my previous posts. But, if you mentioned it -- yes, of course perfection does exist. I have "seen" it and can tell that it is the most real thing I have seen in my life. It is called music. Music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and a few others'. You can easily recognize perfection from the fact that it cannot be improved. Also, you recognize perfection from the way it blows you away and it enlightens you at the same time. If you think you can improve that music, then do it, and your music will become perfection, while Bach, Mozart, a.o., will become second hand composers, for you have proved that their music was improvable. Also, by doing so, you will bring progress to music.

Hmm, I'll have to look for that one. Might be interesting.
I warmly recommend that film, very well done in all the aspects. Which, of course, means nothing more than: I liked it. Or, as someone around here would put it: I am a fan. That's all.

[OneThrow]

On the challenge: “…to compose a "sonata" worth standing near a "sonata" composed by Mozart or Beethoven…”

Why throw it open to only one? Why not everyone? Let’s make a competition of it. Anyone interested can compose a sonata to rank alongside Mozart or Beethoven. Who would be the judge? We would all have to vote. It would be a democratic decision. There’s something going wrong here.

In the first place it wouldn’t be much of a competition. Who would want to be known as the person who wrote a sonata, better than Mozart or as good as Mozart, or not quite as good as Mozart.

Secondly what style would it have to be in? (oxymoron coming up) Mozart’s “style”? I don’t think so. If it sounded wildly different to Mozart, then how can you make a direct comparison? You can’t. And if it sounded like Mozart it would only be a pastiche.

Surely every composer wants to be known for what is good about his/her music, not whether they are a pale imitation of someone else.

Another point: it is difficult to be objective when you talk about the work of someone you admire so much. Was it possible for Mozart to have an off day? He must have had days when he looked down at his score and thought, “I could have done better.” Does that mean his off days are better than everyone else’s on days (if you see what I mean). I know myself when I listen to The Beatles, after a while I think – they’re just a bunch of talented guys doing some good music, yeah I like it. Then after not hearing it for a while their music drifts over from the radio and I’m just stunned. They really nailed it, couldn’t be bettered.

Objectivity: its tough for music you really admire.

Just a thought.

PRE EDIT

Just read your post before I posted this.

Didn't agree with all of it but WOW, :eek: I know where you're coming from man. It makes this one seem puny in comparison.:)

[nikolas]

One throw: Why would anyone take up the challenge? Why would anyone compose in such a manner to begin with? I reckon it's not interesting to try and reach someone, to try to 'be someone'. Instead it seems more interesting to be ones self, to be true to ones self, to be unique, as a person.

Really, I don't understand such a challenge, I really don't! Why try to be Bach/Beethoven/Mozart/Boulez/Ligeti/whatever and not be yourself instead? Why spend all this creativity to create something too simmilar to something else? And something that has been done many many times in the past, something that will be outdated (time wise and NOTHING ELSE, nickysnd), something that might (<-might, nickysnd) be outplaced...

For the challenge and the judge I offer myself:

I failed! (Or I would fail was I to write such a task). There's no need for a challenge.

There!

Does it say anything about anything? Does it say anything about anyone's skills as a composer? Or technical abilities? Or orchestration abilities? Or imagination as far as that is concerned really? I don't think so.

Such silly challenges bellong to preschool...

[OneThrow]

One throw: Why would anyone take up the challenge?


I don't think they would. And for all the reasons you gave. But then I hoped I had made that point in my post.

EDIT

This is the key line.

"Surely every composer wants to be known for what is good about his/her music, not whether they are a pale imitation of someone else."

I am sorry I chose to play fast and loose with something that was so sensitive to you.

[nikolas]

whoops... just read the 2nd half of your first part of your post... Sorry mate! :)

[OneThrow]

No problem.;)

[nickysnd]

Such silly challenges bellong to preschool...
Thank you. Now let me set things straight:
I can't say I find it greatly imaginative to create, yet another... sonata ... not sure if it takes an infinite deal of imagination to create Sonata No. 28 after having composed another 27 before that.
To wich I have responded with something like: well then, make a sonata at that level, and ONLY AFTER THAT come and make your claim: that it was a piece of cake and it took you very little imagination to achieve that level of music.

Thing is: you have read my challenge in the wrong way, because it was plain as daylight that one can't possibly do what I have asked for, and that for so many reasons that you and OneThrow have, finally, pointed out. That challenge was supposed to mean only one thing: HOLD YOUR HORSES when talking about how easy is to do what Mozart and Beethoven have done. Nothing more than that: Hold your horses.

Now, it would be nice to hear from you that you have greatly exaggerated, and that you acknowledge that is impossible to write an effective classical sonata at the level of those guys. And that they were able to do it at that level because of their GREAT imagination.

Failing to be at Beethoven's musical level doesn't degrade you as a composer. Trying to drag Beethoven at a lower level by saying what you have said, does.

There is much more music in a Mozart sonata than you, me, and everyone else in this forum, combined, will ever write.

[zuijlen]

Music doesn't necessarily need to be played. It sounds thousands times better when you read the score. I mean when really reading it, because the score can be misleading too -- you may think it's the territory, while it is only the map.
I never understood that. Is the blueprint better than the building? And what if there is no score? Is there no music?

[nickysnd]

I never understood that. Is the blueprint better than the building? And what if there is no score? Is there no music?
What I was trying to say is: the score, as well as the interpretation, are just different maps of the same territory. They are both maps. They are not music. Music is: understanding and feeling what the composer wanted to communicate. That understanding/feeling is the music. The territory. Everything else are just maps and signs on maps. Dots and flags on paper are just see-able signs on the map called "score," in the same way that sounds are just hear-able signs on the map called "interpretation." None of these two should be confused with the territory, which is: the music. Hope now it makes more sense.

To answer your question: If the map called "score" doesn't exist, then the map called "interpretation" will guide you through the territory. Which is: the music. I know, it's particularly easy to confuse the interpretation (map) with the music (territory).

Composers are privileged people: they don't need maps to enjoy their music. They have their music in their head. In a perfect form too. Then it gets downgraded to the score, then downwards to the interpretation... <sighs> Also, composers are in the best position to understand/feel the music of other composers, while not confusing it with the scores or the interpretations.

The blueprint and the building, that's a perfect example: both, blueprint and building are only maps. What an architect creates is: the feeling of and interior. Enter a cathedral and you'll feel that interior. Enter a pyramid, and you'll feel that interior. Enter any enclosed space and you will feel that enclosed space. These are things one can really experience, although few care to actually experience them. An architect doesn't aim at making blueprints and buildings -- these are just the means for his ultimate goal, which is: creating a feeling of an interior.

Same with music. Only that music is better, because it combines a certain type of understanding with the feeling.

Some will say that an architect creates functional things. True, but good architects aim beyond mere functionality.

Some will say that composers make radio songs and dancing tunes, filmscores, and other functional things. True, but good composers aim beyond mere functionality. That is why Bach's chorales, Mozart's concertos, and Chopin's Etudes are alive, while thousands of other similar functional things are dead.

Composers and architects, yes, very closely related. Good point. :cool:

EDIT -
Have you thought that Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven were Masons? Of course, not all Masons were composers, yet it makes you wonder, the three of them... Masons were like spiritual architects. Which is precisely what a composer is. Right?

[PaulR]

There is much more music in a Mozart sonata than you, me, and everyone else in this forum, combined, will ever write.


That is very true and no arguments there. However Nicky, one has to be careful when quantifying what constitutes music that may or may not be construed as worth writing in the first place.

If I were to stop and think about Bernard Herrmann for example, everytime I tried to write something - I would never get anything written in the first place.

It's too easy to get stultified into inaction thinking too much about the greats through the centuries. There were not that many of them - let's face it. So it's not a good idea for musicians to overplay past greatness and to start subliminally comparing themselves or their writing with the likes of Mozart. Otherwise nothing would ever be done.

To be one of the great musical writers of the centuries - you almost have to be a genetic freak of nature - and have an upbringing that is totally conducive to what you're eventually going to sound like. That's how many we're talking about here when you look at overall populations. Not many. ;)

But what might be interesting is the other side of the coin - that is to say, musicians who have absolutely no idea or artistic conscience about what they write. In other words, you write something and if they like it - you get paid, regardless of artistic merit. And who today can judge the artistic merits of what a good piece of music should sound like? Certainly I can - but then again I'm hugely intelligent and have years of experience in making judgments. :D

Seriously, if a musician can't tell the difference between talk and mutter, I would advise - just take the money every time and go home until the next one.

Mozart did that from time to time as a matter fact.

[PaulR]

I never understood that. Is the blueprint better than the building? And what if there is no score? Is there no music?

Part of it has to do with the way notes are interpreted when actually being played by really good players. One problem with notes on the page is the way nowadays everything has to be locked the same way on a computer page if you like.

One of the many reasons why midi performances will never sound anything like as good as a real orchestra (or group etc) is because of this obsession with a lot of us to get everything neat and tidy on the computer. A real performance, if it were possible to translate it to midi, would look almost unrecognizable on a computer. And different every time too. That's just a miniscule part of it of course.

[Counterpoint]

Oh, I didn't know that progress doesn't always mean improvement.

Progress in the sense of a journey, yes... getting from point A to point B. It's all "progress" even if some of the steps are globally accepted as failed experiments.

Also, you are advocating that our own delusions should show respect towards others' delusions, right?

By all means we should "respect the delusions of others" though I would prefer to use the word "opinions" rather than "delusions". In fact the best teacher I ever had explained this very clearly to my class. He said: "There is no such thing as bad music. If you don't like it, that does not make it bad, it only means that you do not relate to it."

Out of anyone I have ever met, this professor had possibly the most enlightened attitude towards music. He respected ALL of it. None was "better" or "worse", there are only opinions. To him they joy of it is in the effort.

That's just a fancy, narrow, and hollow expression.

Well it obviously can't be taken literally. I would not say it's a hollow expression though. It just means that at a particular moment in time, the audience was not ready for a certain performance that later became a "beloved classic". Almost anything that was ever considered "new" when it was made (versus "working within the status quo") was met with derision and criticism.


You can't compare Beethoven's music with anything else, it's in a league of its own. Same about Bach. And Mozart. And a few others.

... according to who, exactly? Sure you can ask one person and they will confirm this, and then you ask someone else and they will tell you "it all sounds the same to me". Can music be "good" or "bad"? Why then will some people say they like Beethoven but not Mozart if comparisons can not be made?


Pedestal? That's a metaphor for high, yes? As for me, I was talking about the farthest "place" a human being can reach. I wouldn't call that -- pedestal.

I meant you are practically elevating those composers to the level of musical godhood... idols to be worshipped.

While I might agree that their music is highly evolved, I would not use the word "surpassed" even when describing music that attempts to outdo them. You're right that it can't be surpassed, but that is because you can't surpass their music without being them. So what does that leave us with? Difference. The only thing that can be objectively said about music not written by Beethoven is that it is different. It can't be worse, or better, because these concepts depend on who is listening.

Also, of course I know that not everyone can appreciate the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and the like. Some are incapable. Some don't even try. Some try but don't put enough heart and brains into it. A pity.

.. or they are simply wired differently and do not relate to it. This is no reason to look down on them and "pity" them. Difference should be embraced, not pitied.

Don't confuse music with its interpretation.

A person can only form a musical opinion based on what they hear, or imagine that they hear. What I am saying is that when the music of Bach is performed, we don't really know if we are hearing Bach. He's not here to conduct it, or to correct the players if they are getting the phrasing wrong, or if they're playing with the wrong type of strings. The sound of Bach might have been vastly different from any recording we have heard. We really don't know anything about the music that was performed before the invention of recording technology.

Speaking from my own experience with having works performed live, I can say that what the ensemble plays and what I hear in my head as the composer can be two very different things. Even something like playing a quarter note shorter than its intended duration can have a huge impact on the overall sound and even the audience's reception.

I can see that you talk, cold-minded, from an almost scientific position. I can't talk like that about music.

Ok, "infinite" in an artistic sense... I get that, but it's still a pretty big word to just throw around casually.

Maybe I do sound "cold-minded". That's not my intent... a LOT can be achieved with the limited music system we use. However I've had a few things happen that were real eye openers for me... like how difficult it really is to come up with an "original" melody. I've even had a case where both I and another composer came up with almost identical themes (about 12 notes in a row, including rhythm and harmony and maybe 90% of the instrumentation) in isolation from one another.

In other words, if one composer doesn't come up with an idea, someone else will. Maybe this is because the music itself already exists and we are just tapping it somehow? I don't have the answer to that. When it happens, it's a bit of a shock though.

I would say it is ridiculous to presume that one can grow himself wings and fly like a bee.

... and yet we have aircraft because of that very thought.

(Did you know that we don't even know how a bee flies?)

Actually, we do. That bee story is an urban legend:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_045.html


A very comforting thought, isn't it? Unfortunately your "fact" is highly delusional. A man is not the flesh and bones and tissues imbued with water. Again, the map is not the territory. A human being is a spiritual entity. Some are better "entities" than others. Also, music is an aristocracy, you can't apply democratic thinking to it, just as well as you can't apply scientific talking to it.

... and who decides who are the better "entities"? Really, I agree with the spiritual aspect and the higher levels of existence... but I can not subscribe to some judgmental view that favors one person's opinion over that of another.

No, not "we," I never said that. I said something like: this is the best that can be achieved in terms of music.

... and who decides this? You? Me? Mr. Harper? The screaming girls? ;)

"the best that can be achieved" is pure subjectivity. What you or I think of as "the best" will be dismissed as "crap" by someone else. I can guarantee that.

The limit. Which is placed at "plus infinity." Which, in turn, makes it un-limited. But you can reach an infinite number of infinities before reaching the infinity of Bach, which is un-reach-able by its nature.

Yes, writing Bach's music is impossible without being Bach. Whether his music is any good or not is a personal opinion.

It's contradictory, I know, and I'm sorry I can't put it better, for it makes perfect sense to me. BTW, have you read Jacques Derrida's "Aporias"? A little book of 80 pages, nicely translated into English but absolutely delightful in French. I highly recommend it anyways. It's about limits, truth, and contradictions. You will probably need some time though, I took me like 1 hour per page the first time I read it. Very dense. An enlightening reading, worth the time and pain.

I'll check that out for sure. I'm always looking for good books to read. :)


I prefer to gravitate around the multiple star system of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and a few other Suns.

Yes, I understand the analogy... I just don't agree with it. Maybe you see the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven as being the best that can be achieved. Chances are very good that I do too. I can't speak for other people though. Many other composers might listen to their music and see it as... a dead end.

Is your question: why should one want to attain the level of perfection? Dunno. All I know is: reaching that level means to burn. Why should one want to become one with the Sun? Answer that and you'll have the answer to your previous question.

We can't achieve perfection because it does not exist. Again, what is "perfect" to one person is "imperfect" to the next person.

Actually I didn't address perfection in my previous posts.

True that you might not have actually used the word "perfection", but it was alluded to by stating that those composers wrote music that is the best that can be achieved.

You can easily recognize perfection from the fact that it cannot be improved. Also, you recognize perfection from the way it blows you away and it enlightens you at the same time. If you think you can improve that music, then do it, and your music will become perfection, while Bach, Mozart, a.o., will become second hand composers, for you have proved that their music was improvable. Also, by doing so, you will bring progress to music.

This "perfection" is only perceived. So in all honesty you've never listened to a Mozart piece and thought "Hmm, if only he'd used a different harmony there, it would be just a bit better...". The thing is this is all just opinion. I could write a piece of music that sounds better to me, but the rest of the world might (and would be within their rights to) disagree.

- Matt

[nikolas]

I had a conductor teacher. A great man. Sujective of course, but a GREAT MAN. Died in 2007 and I wasn't there to say goodbye! Χαλκιαδάκης! Don't even know what google will bring up, don't have the time.

Some times, just a very few times, the person who tells you something... matters. Even if not academically or officially. But this man was simply stunning. Amazing. My own semi-god of music! A kind man! A joy to be with! I wish I was his son! That sort of thing!

This man, told me that Mozart has writen everything in a perfect way. He has seen the manuscriptis of the works he would conduct (with various famous orchestras in international level), and he told me that the editions were wrong, in small small parts! He ensists on it, and after 10 years I see 'the light'. Religious obsession, I agree, but t's Mozart! And Chalikiadakis! (English lettering of the name I mentioned in Greek above).

Needless to say, he also (amongs many other people) persisted that mozart is.. perfect in ever way. One single note changed and everything goes down the drain. And I have no problem challenging that (claim) in any sense. The man KNEW what he was talking about. He suffered for this (being through the 2nd world war), he was in Paris, in awful conditions, etc... (I love him, in case you don't get it).

The general consent I got from him (and others actually) is that:

Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are better left alone because they are in dialogue with God. Or something that that end...

[nickysnd]

Alright, only three points this time:

"There is no such thing as bad music. If you don't like it, that does not make it bad, it only means that you do not relate to it."
...
there are only opinions.
...
I meant you are practically elevating those composers to the level of musical godhood... idols to be worshipped.
1) Yes, there is good music, there is mediocre music, and there is bad music. Tons of bad music, a great deal of mediocre music, and very little good music. (And here you come and ask the pomo question: "according to who, exactly?" to which I answer quoting Louis Armstrong when asked what is jazz: "Well, if you gotta ask, then you ain't never gonna know.") ;) Also, your teacher was right up to a point: music is not good or bad because I like it, but the other way 'round: I like it because it's good and I dislike it because it's bad.

2) Yes, as I told you: when all we have is subjective opinions, and every opinion has equal value of truth, in such a situation the truth is absent. When it comes to music, there can be no democracy, no equality. Music is an aristocracy. An aristocracy of truth. And, yes, I am aware of how that may sound and how easily it may be misinterpreted, but that is the truth. (... "according to who?" -- Right? :) )

3) No, I was not elevating those composers to the level of musical godhood, and I am not worshiping them as idols. Again, it's the other way around. They are already there, with no intervention from my willingness to put them up there or to get them down from there. You cannot fire-up the Sun, can you? Well, neither can I.

Those composers are not supernatural beings, like gods and idols. Nothing religious to my take, you misunderstood it. Those composers are the normality of humanity. It's the rest of us who are much lower, it's not them that are high. They are at their place, up there, where every Man should be. "The fault, dear Brutus, is in ourselves, that we are underlings." (according to Shakespeare ;) )

[nickysnd]

I had a conductor teacher. A great man. Sujective of course, but a GREAT MAN. Died in 2007 and I wasn't there to say goodbye! Χαλκιαδάκης! Don't even know what google will bring up, don't have the time.

Some times, just a very few times, the person who tells you something... matters. Even if not academically or officially. But this man was simply stunning. Amazing. My own semi-god of music! A kind man! A joy to be with! I wish I was his son! That sort of thing!

This man, told me that Mozart has writen everything in a perfect way. He has seen the manuscriptis of the works he would conduct (with various famous orchestras in international level), and he told me that the editions were wrong, in small small parts! He ensists on it, and after 10 years I see 'the light'. Religious obsession, I agree, but t's Mozart! And Chalikiadakis! (English lettering of the name I mentioned in Greek above).

Needless to say, he also (amongs many other people) persisted that mozart is.. perfect in ever way. One single note changed and everything goes down the drain. And I have no problem challenging that (claim) in any sense. The man KNEW what he was talking about. He suffered for this (being through the 2nd world war), he was in Paris, in awful conditions, etc... (I love him, in case you don't get it).

The general consent I got from him (and others actually) is that:

Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are better left alone because they are in dialogue with God. Or something that that end...
Now that's more like a religious take,;) with which I agree, BTW. I know the eerie feeling of seeing Mozart's perfect manuscripts, it gives me goosebumps this very moment I think of it. Yes, as Matt said, those guys were only human, but humans of a level that we cannot fully understand. They were not gods of course, they were "only" superior, enlightened beings, which we are not. But we should aim towards their state of enlightenment. The mere contact with their music elevates us. Also, Beethoven -- his manuscripts were almost indecipherable, but even besides the intelligible notes, from the handwriting itself, you can feel the power of a super-mind at work, trying to achieve something almost impossible to get. And then getting it! Amazing individuals, each one in his own way.

Chalikiadakis? Nikolas, are you sure your conductor was Greek and his name was not Celibidache? ;)

[OneThrow]

... it was plain as daylight that one can't possibly do what I have asked for, and that for so many reasons that you and OneThrow have, finally, pointed out.

We have a strange way of almost agreeing with each other don't you think.;)


One of the many reasons why midi performances will never sound anything like as good as a real orchestra (or group etc) is because of this obsession with a lot of us to get everything neat and tidy on the computer. A real performance, if it were possible to translate it to midi, would look almost unrecognizable on a computer. And different every time too. That's just a miniscule part of it of course.

It doesn't look almost unrecognizable. It is unrecognizable. Every time I try and play with those damned flexible metronomes the notation comes out crap. And if I try and play "in time" the music comes out crap. So I generally key it in if I want to read it and play it in if I want to hear it. Not that its that good anyway. But I'm talking about mechanics, not quality.

[nickysnd]

We have a strange way of almost agreeing with each other don't you think.;)
That we basically agree with each other is the truth that always shines through the appearance of disagreeing with each other.

Every time I try and play with those damned flexible metronomes the notation comes out crap. And if I try and play "in time" the music comes out crap.
That's because you try to adapt the territory to the map. Map is crap. Stick with the music. Do it the way you feel it from within, not from some outer limitations. Notation, computers, midi, these are all imperfect tools, but that's not an excuse to adjust the music to them. Make your tools work. Actually that's my problem too, it's like 99% of the work to me. Composing is the easiest part. Making the music sound the way I want it -- that's my nightmare. I wish I had the money to hire someone to do it for me, for I know what I want is doable, it's only my hate of technology, which makes me slow in finding technical solutions.

[OneThrow]

;)

[PaulR]

It doesn't look almost unrecognizable. It is unrecognizable. Every time I try and play with those damned flexible metronomes the notation comes out crap. And if I try and play "in time" the music comes out crap. So I generally key it in if I want to read it and play it in if I want to hear it. Not that its that good anyway. But I'm talking about mechanics, not quality.

The thing is - it doesn't even depend on how good or competent one is as a keyboard player - the keyboard being the usual midi interface of course - fairly or unfairly. Does an expert violinist or percussionist say, do their writing or improvisations on a keyboard?

There are two thoughts maybe. There's the quantized, neat and tidy score that one has to present for an orchestra - and then there's a midi performance. I would always recommend that once one has a fairly passable bit of timing and rubato etc with one or two instruments - then the click should just be turned off if being played in. I just don't get the other way of doing it with a mouse personally. I guess you have to make it untidy as you go then?
Neat and tidy midi performances for orchestral work sound like sh!te to me - I can't stand to listen to it. But this is only part of the problems that one encounters using midi and samples when the overall picture and sound is paramount.

I'm not the world's best midi mocker-upper and always get accused by friends that I quantize too much. I don't - I just have an extremely advanced hand action with close eye-to-ball control - even now!!!!! :()()()()()() :)

[DallasComposer]

It’s sticking head above parapet time.

Style. We have it whether we like it or not. It comes from the choices we make.

But it is more than that. Does it come from an unwritten set of rules that we follow, consciously or unconsciously?

Language has a set of rules that allows us to converse. It allows unlimited freedom for self-expression and it allows unlimited styles of expression.

So. When someone is doing that killer track or an emotion defining cue, what is it that makes it undeniably their style and no one else’s?

Or to put it another way.
Do you think composers should be a – “freedom of imagination composer” - where chaos reigns supreme, or an – “I follow the rules composer” - where clients set the rules.

Or should the composer be none of the above?

So, what was the original discussion about now?

[Counterpoint]

1) Yes, there is good music, there is mediocre music, and there is bad music. Tons of bad music, a great deal of mediocre music, and very little good music. (And here you come and ask the pomo question: "according to who, exactly?" to which I answer quoting Louis Armstrong when asked what is jazz: "Well, if you gotta ask, then you ain't never gonna know.") ;) Also, your teacher was right up to a point: music is not good or bad because I like it, but the other way 'round: I like it because it's good and I dislike it because it's bad.

Louis Armstrong's answer about jazz music was correct, but that has nothing to do with the question I put forth. It would be interesting to ask him the question "Who decides what music is good and what music is bad?".

Since I can't actually tell you what Louis would say, I'll provide my own answer:

Music is nothing without a listener, and only the listener can decide if they relate to the music or not, and to what degree they relate to it. Maybe they love it, maybe they hate it, or perhaps they are somewhere in the middle. "Good music"... "Bad music"? This is dealing with extremes.

2) Yes, as I told you: when all we have is subjective opinions, and every opinion has equal value of truth, in such a situation the truth is absent. When it comes to music, there can be no democracy, no equality. Music is an aristocracy. An aristocracy of truth. And, yes, I am aware of how that may sound and how easily it may be misinterpreted, but that is the truth. (... "according to who?" -- Right? :) )

The "truth" is not absent... it is relative. What is true for one person is not true for another. The fact that we're arguing about this should be evidence enough. ;) Aristocracy of truth? It would be more accurate to say "aristocracy of subjective opinion".

3) No, I was not elevating those composers to the level of musical godhood, and I am not worshiping them as idols. Again, it's the other way around. They are already there, with no intervention from my willingness to put them up there or to get them down from there. You cannot fire-up the Sun, can you? Well, neither can I.

Those composers are not supernatural beings, like gods and idols. Nothing religious to my take, you misunderstood it. Those composers are the normality of humanity. It's the rest of us who are much lower, it's not them that are high. They are at their place, up there, where every Man should be.

Whether we elevate one group of people or lower the others, the end result is the same.

Those composers were devoted to their art. Without a listener, their art is meaningless. It is the listeners who elevate or diminish everyone else.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is in ourselves, that we are underlings." (according to Shakespeare ;) )

.. and things sure ended well for Brutus and Caesar, didn't they? ;)

- Matt

[Counterpoint]

The thing is - it doesn't even depend on how good or competent one is as a keyboard player - the keyboard being the usual midi interface of course - fairly or unfairly. Does an expert violinist or percussionist say, do their writing or improvisations on a keyboard?

Well, one of the more recent developments in terms of controllers are the ones that take an audio stream and analyze the frequencies in it. I know at least one guy here (Ecliptic) who uses one attached to his guitar and uses it for note entry.

With this type of interface, you could use any real instrument for note entry. Of course, then you also have a WAV file with a real performance in it, too. ;)

There are two thoughts maybe. There's the quantized, neat and tidy score that one has to present for an orchestra - and then there's a midi performance. I would always recommend that once one has a fairly passable bit of timing and rubato etc with one or two instruments - then the click should just be turned off if being played in. I just don't get the other way of doing it with a mouse personally. I guess you have to make it untidy as you go then?

Yes, you can either use an algorithm to "humanize" the performance (though this is not always a great result) or you can disable note snapping if the host supports that and just click the notes in where you want them to play, which is much faster than entering and then adjusting them later.

Neat and tidy midi performances for orchestral work sound like sh!te to me - I can't stand to listen to it. But this is only part of the problems that one encounters using midi and samples when the overall picture and sound is paramount.

True, it's pretty much impossible to have an orchestra play in perfect synchronization with one another (also taking into consideration that the sound from the musicians at the back takes a few more MS to travel to the listener than the instruments at the front).

For me it depends on the music... some music sounds great quantized while other music sounds really fake and horrible.

I'm not the world's best midi mocker-upper and always get accused by friends that I quantize too much. I don't - I just have an extremely advanced hand action with close eye-to-ball control - even now!!!!! :()()()()()() :)

The only real trick to mocking up music is to treat the DAW like a musical instrument and not like a computer.

- Matt

[Counterpoint]

Hi OneThrow,

My apologies... I allowed myself to get sidetracked by the "second discussion" going on here and never replied to your original post.

It’s sticking head above parapet time.

Style. We have it whether we like it or not. It comes from the choices we make.

But it is more than that. Does it come from an unwritten set of rules that we follow, consciously or unconsciously?

Language has a set of rules that allows us to converse. It allows unlimited freedom for self-expression and it allows unlimited styles of expression.

So. When someone is doing that killer track or an emotion defining cue, what is it that makes it undeniably their style and no one else’s?

This is an interesting question, and really hard to find an answer for it. There are many times that I've listened to music and instantly recognized the composer because it has their "signature" on it.

It could be that by listening to a composer's music long enough we develop some kind of a link to them that makes it easier for us to recognize their "style" when we hear works that we are not familiar with.

Possibly it's the same mechanism that enables us to "instantly" recognize a friend's voice on the phone, before they're even finished saying "hello".

Or to put it another way.
Do you think composers should be a – “freedom of imagination composer” - where chaos reigns supreme, or an – “I follow the rules composer” - where clients set the rules.

Or should the composer be none of the above?

I'd say it depends on the context. When writing for the joy of writing ("art music"), I'd vote more for the chaos side. The composer can feel free to explore any ideas they like.

When writing for a client ("commercial music"), one does tend to fall more into the "following the rules" category since the client needs to be satisfied with the product. If the client is not happy, then either you do not get paid, or you will not work for that client again.

Even in the commercial sense, the composer still must put their own thoughts into the project, so it becomes more the challenge of how one can best serve their artistic vision given a stricter set of rules.

It's also worth noting that some clients are more "picky" than others. For example, if a client hires a specific composer because they like his/her work, then it's more likely the composer will have a greater degree of control over the music. In other cases, a client might already have a very clear and fixed idea of what they want.

Cheers,

- Matt

[OneThrow]

There are two thoughts maybe. There's the quantized, neat and tidy score that one has to present for an orchestra - and then there's a midi performance. I would always recommend that once one has a fairly passable bit of timing and rubato etc with one or two instruments - then the click should just be turned off if being played in. I just don't get the other way of doing it with a mouse personally. I guess you have to make it untidy as you go then?

Afterwards.


I'm not the world's best midi mocker-upper and always get accused by friends that I quantize too much. I don't - I just have an extremely advanced hand action with close eye-to-ball control - even now!!!!! :()()()()()() :)

:eek:

[OneThrow]

So, what was the original discussion about now?

Ah-ha. You know I'd almost forgotten. Thanks for reminding me. Now:

I would probably plump for being a “freedom of the imagination” composer within certain parameters. On a purely practical level I think a composer has to allow his mind to go whereever it wants to go. This does not lead to chaos unless the mind is unordered; it leads to music that is truthful for that composer. Even when fulfilling a commission for someone who has exact ideas of what they want, at some point the imagination has to be free to do its work. If not, what do you end up with? Well, a fettered imagination is no imagination at all.

The moment of creation is a place not bound by logic, whatever is there, is there. Logic and reasoning come after.

What of rules. Well I suppose everything has rules or conventions except the moment of creation. You cannot create truthfully if you are following a manual of rules. If you memorise the manual and absorb the rules into your thinking, then they can become part of your music. If you accept rules, you should not be bound by them, you should be freed by them. A true musical imagination transcends all rules.

I'm sure a lot of you will think that is a load of twaddle, but that's my two pence worth.

[nickysnd]

Louis Armstrong's answer about jazz music was correct, but that has nothing to do with the question I put forth. It would be interesting to ask him the question "Who decides what music is good and what music is bad?".

Since I can't actually tell you what Louis would say, I'll provide my own answer:

Music is nothing without a listener, and only the listener can decide if they relate to the music or not, and to what degree they relate to it. Maybe they love it, maybe they hate it, or perhaps they are somewhere in the middle. "Good music"... "Bad music"? This is dealing with extremes.
There is also the mediocre music, in between. Which is essentially bad music too, only it serves some fun purposes.

Yes, for us underlings, the listener is king, but when we cross the border and enter into the real music realm, there the kings are Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. One can dismiss their power only at his own loss. "Music is nothing without a listener?" Hmm, only months ago I would have agreed with that. I have recently realized that, as a composer, I am nothing without Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. The theory of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" becomes silly when listening to real music. I admit so far I was not really listening to it. I am only beginning to.

The "truth" is not absent... it is relative. What is true for one person is not true for another. The fact that we're arguing about this should be evidence enough. ;) Aristocracy of truth? It would be more accurate to say "aristocracy of subjective opinion".
Yes, that's what discussions like this are. Music, at least at the level of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, deals with absolutes. As Nikolas, or his teacher has put it, those guys really were "in dialog with God" -- or, for skeptics (which I begin to doubt that I am ;) ), they were explorers/storytellers revealing wonders and marvels that we can't see but through their stories.

Truth can't be relative. Truth is absolute, or it's not truth but only a surrogate, an illusion. Truth and reality are the only things that hold everything together. And that's precisely what good music is dealing with: truth and the reality based on it.

Whether we elevate one group of people or lower the others, the end result is the same.
We have little to no control of how our music is perceived. Pleasing the client has been moved from the first to the last priority to me. The first two are: serving the music, then serving an idea. If the listener fails to get these two, then that's my material loss and his spiritual loss. It may be financially rewarding, but it is morally degrading to adjust love poetry according to the pigs' sexual desires. Money can be made through many other ways than prostituting the music.

Those composers were devoted to their art. Without a listener, their art is meaningless. It is the listeners who elevate or diminish everyone else.
See, it first looked rational, but then that theory completely failed the test of reality. When it comes to music above a certain level, that theory falls like a playing cards house, and becomes a stack of meaningless pieces of paper.

.. and things sure ended well for Brutus and Caesar, didn't they? ;)
Actually it was Cassius who said that. Yes, the characters in a tragedy never end well, no matter the sides they take, ain't it sad? That's what gives tragedy its noble character. But poetry and drama are worthy for pointing out truths like that: in real life, we truly are underlings, all of us, and what makes us underlings is failing to acknowledge what we are. We get out of this state by first acknowledging it. Failing to do so, most of us remain at that state, or go downhill from that. And then we don't end well either, eh?

Failing to acknowledge that superior music is above our silly tastes is only an aggravating factor. No, without us listeners, good music doesn't cease to be good music. It's without good music that we cease to be good listeners, and good human beings in general. It's not us listeners who lift up the music of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven to a superior place. Truth is, it's the other way around. That music is already in a superior place. It's up to us to elevate ourselves to it. Some people can't. Some are, unluckily, underexposed to it. Some others fail to see the advantage in that type of spiritual elevation. Some others don't believe in and don't care for such things as superior music.

Nikolas' teacher has said it well. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven truly were "in conversation with God." Failing to understand the truth in those words, also failing to attend to those conversations that they generously made public, that's what keeps people at the level of underlings.

End of rant.

life is Fun and music is Entertainment.

[DallasComposer]

We have little to no control of how our music is perceived. Pleasing the client has been moved from the first to the last priority to me. The first two are: serving the music, then serving an idea. If the listener fails to get these two, then that's my material loss and his spiritual loss.

If I listen to your music and am not moved and I don't get that you are 'serving the music' and 'serving an idea' ... I understand that your loss is your loss, but how is it my loss and what exactly is a 'spiritual loss' by not getting your music?

[nickysnd]

If I listen to your music and am not moved and I don't get that you are 'serving the music' and 'serving an idea' ... I understand that your loss is your loss, but how is it my loss and what exactly is a 'spiritual loss' by not getting your music?
Your spiritual loss of not getting my music will be exactly as my spiritual loss of not getting your own music, assuming that your pieces, just as my pieces, are serving the music and an idea, and not some silly taste of a client. How would we know that about each other's pieces? Don't ask me. I would know it. And you would know it.

I admit that spiritual loss is something hard to be perceived as such. Something like living without reading books -- you know, most can do without. I doubt that a football player does experience any spiritual loss for spending his time the way he is spending his time.

[DallasComposer]

Your spiritual loss of not getting my music will be exactly as my spiritual loss of not getting your own music, assuming that your pieces, just as my pieces, are serving the music and an idea, and not some silly taste of a client. How would we know that about each other's pieces? Don't ask me. I would know it. And you would know it.

I admit that spiritual loss is something hard to be perceived as such. Something like living without reading books -- you know, most can do without. I doubt that a football player does experience any spiritual loss for spending his time the way he is spending his time.

Nicky, I’m sorry and with all due respect but, you didn’t really answer the question. We were not talking about my music. I’m not making any claims about my music, claiming it’s the listener’s spiritual loss if they don’t get it, as you have. I’m not making any real comments about your music I’m only asking the question as in an example to better understand you and your music. Simple example, you post or release a piece of music for all to hear and one that you feel you ‘served the music’ and ‘served an idea’ with and I (or anyone for that matter), as a listener(s) don’t get it, or feel moved or have any real emotional response to it, how does that become my (or our) loss? and a spiritual loss?

What are we spiritually missing out on if we dont get your music?

[Counterpoint]

There is also the mediocre music, in between. Which is essentially bad music too, only it serves some fun purposes.

"Good", "Bad", "Mediocre". These are all opinions, music in itself is none of these things.

Yes, for us underlings, the listener is king, but when we cross the border and enter into the real music realm, there the kings are Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. One can dismiss their power only at his own loss. "Music is nothing without a listener?" Hmm, only months ago I would have agreed with that. I have recently realized that, as a composer, I am nothing without Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. The theory of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" becomes silly when listening to real music. I admit so far I was not really listening to it. I am only beginning to.

That is honestly great that you feel that way about Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, it is good to have something to aspire to. However, without Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, music would still be composed, and still be subject to the opinions of the listeners.

The listener is always the final authority, even for Bach, Beethoven or Mozart.

Yes, that's what discussions like this are. Music, at least at the level of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, deals with absolutes. As Nikolas, or his teacher has put it, those guys really were "in dialog with God" -- or, for skeptics (which I begin to doubt that I am ;) ), they were explorers/storytellers revealing wonders and marvels that we can't see but through their stories.

Yes, Nikolas and his teacher are RIGHT to have opinions and to feel that way about Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. Yes, those composers were explorers/storytellers. That doesn't mean that everybody must like them or hold their music in high esteem. It doesn't even make their music "good".


Truth can't be relative. Truth is absolute, or it's not truth but only a surrogate, an illusion. Truth and reality are the only things that hold everything together. And that's precisely what good music is dealing with: truth and the reality based on it.

"Truth" depends on who you ask. In reality, it is the absolutes that are the illusion.

The music of Bach is perfect. This is a truth? Very well, I'll disprove it.

For the music of Bach to be "perfect", that means that every listener must also perceive it as "perfect". However, there exist people who do not perceive the music of Bach as "perfect". Therefore, it is not "perfect".

The most we can say is that, on average (depending on the sample group) the music of Bach appears to be appreciated and enjoyed.

We have little to no control of how our music is perceived. Pleasing the client has been moved from the first to the last priority to me. The first two are: serving the music, then serving an idea. If the listener fails to get these two, then that's my material loss and his spiritual loss. It may be financially rewarding, but it is morally degrading to adjust love poetry according to the pigs' sexual desires. Money can be made through many other ways than prostituting the music.

... and what exactly do you suggest that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven were doing with large portions of their sponsored or funded music?

Actually it was Cassius who said that.

It doesn't matter who said it, my point was that Brutus (the underling) and Caesar (the elevated one) both ended up dead.

Failing to acknowledge that superior music is above our silly tastes is only an aggravating factor. No, without us listeners, good music doesn't cease to be good music.

Without us listeners, the music simply ceases to be.

It's without good music that we cease to be good listeners, and good human beings in general. It's not us listeners who lift up the music of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven to a superior place. Truth is, it's the other way around.

The music can only "lift us up" if we relate to it. The "lifting" sensation means that something within a particular listener resonates with the message of the composer. This does not mean that everyone will be elevated by it. Need some proof? Talk to some people who come from a different musical background (eg: India). Many of those listeners will tell you that Bach sounds very strange to them, and does nothing for them, but yet they get the same experience when they are listening to their own spiritual music. How can this be, if the music of Bach is a universal truth?

That music is already in a superior place. It's up to us to elevate ourselves to it. Some people can't. Some are, unluckily, underexposed to it. Some others fail to see the advantage in that type of spiritual elevation. Some others don't believe in and don't care for such things as superior music.

... and some find their spiritual elevation elsewhere because their understanding of the message is different from ours.

Nikolas' teacher has said it well. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven truly were "in conversation with God." Failing to understand the truth in those words, also failing to attend to those conversations that they generously made public, that's what keeps people at the level of underlings.

Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. That is an opinion which can neither be confirmed nor denied. Even if I personally agree with that, it does not make it a "truth".

The whole concept of underlings is distasteful. Dealing in "absolute truth" is distasteful. These are the tools that arrogant people use to make themselves feel special and to control others.

Cheers,

- Matt

[nickysnd]

Only three points, again -- :)

The whole concept of underlings is distasteful.

Dealing in "absolute truth" is distasteful.

These are the tools that arrogant people use to make themselves feel special and to control others.
3) I understand how you feel. The concepts of absolute good, truth, reality, good music, perfection, spiritual elevation -- these are distasteful things to underlings. Their distaste is part of what keeps them in the state of underlings. But those concepts are also the way to get out of the state of underlings. The music of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven -- generally, good music, superior music -- by facilitating access to the concepts mentioned above, does provide the vehicles that could elevate the underlings from their inferior state into a superior state. That music is able to free people from their narrow cages into the light of enlightened human spirituality. You may call that: the distasteful delusion of an arrogant prick who aims to control people -- but calling it that, and seeing it that way, that would only be wrong. The truth is the exact the opposite of that image. The truth is positive. That image is negative.

1) It's not the concept of underlings that is distasteful, but the underlings themselves are distasteful by their own nature. What is even more distasteful is when they enjoy their inferior state and spread it, perpetuate it.

2) "Dealing in absolute truth" is the only way good music, good drama, good poetry, good art in general, can be experienced. The only way. Everything else can be "understood" by the relativity game of half-truths, presumptions, assumptions, opinions, perceptions, sensations, etc.

And, just to illustrate this last point, I will address your attempt to disprove the perfection of Bach's music:
The music of Bach is perfect. This is a truth? Very well, I'll disprove it.
For the music of Bach to be "perfect", that means that every listener must also perceive it as "perfect". However, there exist people who do not perceive the music of Bach as "perfect". Therefore, it is not "perfect".
The major premise: For the music of Bach to be "perfect", that means that every listener must also perceive it as "perfect".
-- This is false, because your are conditioning the existence of <something> by the perception of that <something>. Let me explain: death is never perceived. One cannot even perceive the occurrence of death, be it someone else's or his own, for different reasons. Fact is, we don't know anything about the perception of death. Perception of death is an impossibility. We only assume, after seeing the corpse not moving for an arbitrary amount of time, that the person "has to be dead by now." But, meanwhile, the death itself and its occurrence have both escaped to our perception. Now, being unrelated to our perception, does death exist?

So, for something to exist, it doesn't necessarily need to be perceived by us humans. Besides, human perception is imperfect by nature. Perfection cannot be experienced through imperfection, that would be nonsense. Perfection can be experienced only by "dealing in absolute" -- by entering in a superior state that will allow you to experience perfection. You cannot experience perfection by using your ears, eyes, or brain-cells. You can experience perfection only through your spirit, which is sensible to perfection, so that it can enter in resonance with the perfection of Bach's music. Perfection exists and it is unrelated to our perception, only to our spirit. Now, a syllogism with a false major premise is already flawed, but let's go on.

The minor premise: However, there exist people who do not perceive the music of Bach as "perfect".
-- That claim is correct, but insufficient to make the entire demonstration correct. Besides, here you are hiding this: Perceiving Bach's music as imperfect is due to the imperfection of the perceiving organs: ears and brain-cells, in this case. Perception, being imperfect, can only perceive imperfect things. Perfection cannot be perceived but only experienced. And that happens through spirituality, which is our only "antenna" for perfection.

The conclusion: Therefore, it is not "perfect".
-- When the major premise is false, and the minor premise is correct but inadequate to the situation, the conclusion can only be false.

Your "demonstration" is similar to this one:
For an elephant to exist, it has to be perceived by everybody as an elephant. However, there are people, like those notorious six blind men, who perceive the elephant as various different things, because of their imperfect perception. Therefore, since not everybody can perceive an elephant as an elephant, the elephant doesn't exist.

Truth is: perfection is real, to a much greater degree than an elephant is real. Generally, someone's failure to perceive <something> doesn't say anything about the existence of that <something>.

[nickysnd]

you didn’t really answer the question. ... What are we spiritually missing out on if we dont get your music?
If you are asking for a word, I am sorry that I don't know that word. But my answer to your question is: the thing (that I don't have a word for) that you will be spiritually missing out from my piece of music that you don't get could be something similar to the thing that I will be spiritually missing out from your piece of music that I don't get. That is, assuming that both your piece and my piece do serve both the music and meaningful ideas.

Which reminds me of this:
"What cannot be spoken about must be passed over in silence." -- L. Wittgenstein

Or, better, in music.

EDIT -
I think I have found a few words that may describe what you will spiritually miss out from not getting my music, but let me first ask you this:
Where were you before your parents were born?
Depending on your answer, I will adjust my previous answer.
If you will say: "Nowhere" -- then my answer to your previous question will be: "Nothing."
If you will say: "Somewhere." -- then my answer to your question will be: "Something."
If you will say: "I don't know." -- then I will say: "Likewise."
Would that be zen enough for you?

[DallasComposer]

If you are asking for a word, I am sorry that I don't know that word. But my answer to your question is: the thing (that I don't have a word for) that you will be spiritually missing out from my piece of music that you don't get could be something similar to the thing that I will be spiritually missing out from your piece of music that I don't get. That is, assuming that both your piece and my piece do serve both the music and meaningful ideas.

Which reminds me of this:
"What cannot be spoken about must be passed over in silence." -- L. Wittgenstein

Or, better, in music.

EDIT -
I think I have found a few words that may describe what you will spiritually miss out from not getting my music, but let me first ask you this:
Where were you before your parents were born?
Depending on your answer, I will adjust my previous answer.
If you will say: "Nowhere" -- then my answer to your previous question will be: "Nothing."
If you will say: "Somewhere." -- then my answer to your question will be: "Something."
If you will say: "I don't know." -- then I will say: "Likewise."
Would that be zen enough for you?

Thanks nicky, your answer is very clear now.

Now, I'm very curious to listen to some of your music.

[nickysnd]

Now, I'm very curious to listen to some of your music.
And your sudden interest in my music, especially in this context, makes me curious about your curiosity. So, let's call it a truce.

[Counterpoint]

The concepts of absolute good, truth...

Ok, it's getting pretty obvious we're coming from different directions here. Could it be that we both mean the same thing, which might be represented by the following statement?

Enlightenment can only be attained through humility.

... and that we both have subjective opinions on what is meant by "Enlightenment" and "humility"?


The major premise: For the music of Bach to be "perfect", that means that every listener must also perceive it as "perfect".
-- This is false, because your are conditioning the existence of <something> by the perception of that <something>.

Ok, allow me to restructure and get a little bit more specific:

For the music of Bach to be flawless, every listener must agree that it is without flaw.

Let me explain: death is never perceived. One cannot even perceive the occurrence of death, be it someone else's or his own, for different reasons.

A good friend of mine was with her grandmother at the moment of her death. She described the whole thing to me. One minute her grandmother was there, and then she had a distinct sense of departure and at that moment the person became a body. Perhaps we (or maybe just certain people?) have more perception than just our physical senses.

The minor premise: However, there exist people who do not perceive the music of Bach as "perfect".
-- That claim is correct, but insufficient to make the entire demonstration correct. Besides, here you are hiding this: Perceiving Bach's music as imperfect is due to the imperfection of the perceiving organs: ears and brain-cells, in this case. Perception, being imperfect, can only perceive imperfect things. Perfection cannot be perceived but only experienced. And that happens through spirituality, which is our only "antenna" for perfection.

By that logic you don't even need to listen to a musical work to determine whether or not it is good. In fact, by that reasoning, a deaf and blind person would be able to tell the difference between "good" and "bad" music just by using their "spiritual antenna".

Let me express this a little bit differently, with no assumptions about either the people or the music:

Person A likes the music X and dislikes the music Y.
Person B likes the music Y and dislikes the music X.
Person A perceived the music Y to be flawed.
Person B perceived the music X to be flawed.

Ok, now tell me which is the perfect music? X or Y? Who's spiritual antenna is working, A or B?

Your "demonstration" is similar to this one:
For an elephant to exist, it has to be perceived by everybody as an elephant. However, there are people, like those notorious six blind men, who perceive the elephant as various different things, because of their imperfect perception. Therefore, since not everybody can perceive an elephant as an elephant, the elephant doesn't exist.

Correct. The elephant does not exist for the person who can not relate to it. The elephant itself exists.

Now tell me: Is the elephant good, or is it bad?

- Matt

[nickysnd]

Three points:
For the music of Bach to be flawless, every listener must agree that it is without flaw.
No, to be flawless, it doesn't need one listener's opinion, nor does it need the other listener's different opinion. It doesn't need opinions at all. Votes, agreements, and other democratic devices are irrelevant when it comes to good music. Good music is an aristocracy. Exactly, self-appointed, no votes, imagine that -- awful, ain't it? That's absurd, how can something be good if we cannot vote? Huh?? You are right: if it's not good for you, then it's not good for you.

Besides, I thought that you have seen why the existence of something is not determined by some opinions or some imperfect perceptions of some underlings. If you haven't, then I am sorry that my example about death did not convince you. I probably was not clear enough, for that example is as plain as daylight to me. In turn, your example about "feeling the departure" doesn't say anything about the grandmother's death but only about the granddaughter's feeling.

Who's spiritual antenna is working, A or B?
Dunno, ask RadioShack.

Is the elephant good, or is it bad?
An elephant cannot exist, for that would require that everybody agreed on its existence. Ask me again after the consensus is achieved.

[DallasComposer]

And your sudden interest in my music, especially in this context, makes me curious about your curiosity. So, let's call it a truce.

A truce?

A truce indicates that we are fighting; I’m not fighting nor trying to be argumentative at all, just trying to understand your claim better.

A claim that we as listeners are missing out on something ‘spiritual’ if we don’t ‘get’ your music is a rather bold statement and I only want to understand what you as a composer meant by that so I may listen more intently to something I may be missing from it next time I have the opportunity to listen to your music.

I feel one should be able to explain what they claim we will be missing, after all if they can’t explain it, how can we understand it.

Again, this has nothing to do with my music for I make no such claims about my music of any kind so don’t switch it around about my music.

It has nothing to do with Zen like questions to me and ‘is it Zen enough for me’. It's not about what I want to hear it's about you helping us understand the spiritual aspects of your music better, so we, as listeners don't miss out on the message, the idea.

Personally I find it rather evasive when someone answers a question with a question back or comments back about the other person, it’s a diversion of sorts, things politicians do.

Maybe it would be better if I asked it in an interview fashion as “Nicky, you have claimed that we will be missing out on the spiritual aspect of your music being that you serve the music and the idea, so, what are you trying to spiritually communicate to us through your music? What is the idea you are trying to convey to us?

And maybe simply, there is no answer, you don’t know or admit perhaps it was not the best choice of words you meant to express, maybe that’s the answer.

A sudden interest in your music?

I have always been interested in your music, when someone talks and talks a lot and boldly at times, I want to hear what musical ideas they have. Sadly though I have only heard maybe 3 pieces I can remember over the years from you (sadly in that you haven't posted much nor have any online that you let us know about) and now because of this discussion I want to listen deeper.

My music, it’s out there, and I communicate and trade music ideas and some collaborations with several members on this forum weekly, although we make no claims about what we do, we just have fun.

[nickysnd]

Thanks nicky, your answer is very clear now.
Then no point in asking again.

Now, I'm very curious to listen to some of your music.
I have addressed that too, by saying that your curiosity about my music in this context makes me curious about your curiosity. Thanks for addressing so honestly what's behind your curiosity: "I want to listen deeper." How sweet. So you are looking for the relation (or lack thereof) between my claims and my music. I'm sure your goal is to get spiritually enlightened, elevated, and, considering my claims, you thought that my music might be the best qualified to enlighten you. Right? Now, here's my take on all this: The fact that you insist and expect me to post a piece of music in order to prove myself, that says to me about your attitude more than your words do.

Instead of all this circus you could have said straightforward from the start: I don't believe that claim of yours. Or: I very much doubt that. And cut the shit about "wanting to listen to my music." Talking about evasive...

Stick with Ryuichi.

EDIT -
Here's another possible answer to your inquiry about what you might miss from a piece of music -- when asked what is jazz, Louis Armstrong answered: "Well, if you gotta ask, then you ain't never gonna know."

[OneThrow]

PaulR

I was thinking about my reply to your last post (I do that sometimes), and I realise the :eek smilie was wrong, it should have been. - That's nice. Or. That's nice for an old fella;). So sorry about the :eek.

The other thing about playing into a sequencer along with a metronome. I was thinking more in terms of improvising. I know a sequencer is not going to be able to interpret a freeform improv. but it never really does it for me even when playing along to a metronome. I probably don't have your ball control. ;)

Entering one line. Well I suppose we're talking about time here. And it always takes too long. For example:
Keying it in. That takes time, then you set velocities, humanize in some way, set dynamics etc.
Playing it in. Check velocities, take out some of the humanizing so you can read it (quantize doesn't always work). And if I play it in I have to write it out in manuscript first. You're getting bored by this I can tell. Point is, for me there is no quick way. You can wake up now.:)

[OneThrow]

It is interesting. Two challenges have been thrown open in this thread and both have been ducked - for very good reasons I might add.

The point is you can't use your own music to make a point about music. Music is not about words, its about.... well.... its about music.

You can use other people's music to make a point, but that's different.

We're sensitive old souls really don't you think?;)

[Counterpoint]

No, to be flawless, it doesn't need one listener's opinion, nor does it need the other listener's different opinion. It doesn't need opinions at all. Votes, agreements, and other democratic devices are irrelevant when it comes to good music. Good music is an aristocracy. Exactly, self-appointed, no votes, imagine that -- awful, ain't it? That's absurd, how can something be good if we cannot vote? Huh?? You are right: if it's not good for you, then it's not good for you.

It was opinions, "votes", and good fortune that permitted the music of Bach to survive to be heard today. Without those opinions, it would have been lost and neither you nor I would have ever had the opportunity to hear it, let alone discuss it.

We've already lost a huge portion of Bach's music, since we have nothing left of his improvised works.

So who preserved and maintained the music that we do have, over the years, keeping the manuscripts safe from fires, prepared it all to be mass-produced when the printing press was invented? Whoops... I guess it must have been lowly, unworthy underlings.

Speaking of the printing press, how much of Bach's music can we actually verify against the originals? Can we vouch for the authenticity of all of Bach's perfect music?

Brace yourself... you will cry when you see some of the photos on this web site:

http://www.raptusassociation.org/bachoriginals_e.html

- Matt

[PaulR]

For example:
Keying it in. That takes time, then you set velocities, humanize in some way, set dynamics etc.
Playing it in. Check velocities, take out some of the humanizing so you can read it (quantize doesn't always work). And if I play it in I have to write it out in manuscript first. You're getting bored by this I can tell. Point is, for me there is no quick way. You can wake up now.:)

I suppose that if you think about it, orchestras and rock groups have metronomes. One's a conductor and the other's usually a drummer. BUT - they don't keep exact time like a computer. A lot of the time, a conductor will turn off the click. That's important - especially re: Rubato etc.

Humanize. The word for me is a tough one because I can't abide technology in the first place. But, not being the world's leading exponent of either writing or samples, I think the whole issue of getting music to sound more natural is not to have clicks unless completely necessary. Free-flow playing if one can do it is good. That just means one instrument at a time. Incidentally, I'm not sure about playing all the parts in just on a piano sound, for example.

Oh yeah - absolutely. Velocities and dynamics and all that stuff are a pain. But you've got to use all this stuff otherwise it can sound really dreadful.

Any piece of music is fine by me if it sounds at least OK. Doesn't have to be enth degree perfect in terms of the use of samples so you think that it...it....it....(I can't say it)..it...it..... It could be real!!!! :D

I believe that when we use samples - a great invention to me btw - then all this crap about 'well if you do that then you've got 48 violins playing' actually doesn't matter. If it sounds good then that's it.

The only time that this may become an issue is when the sample library is being used as a signpost to a real orchestra recording later. And even then, experience tells you that this is not so much of a problem and fun and interesting things happen with real players. Samples and real orchestras should be a great team - unfortunately the costs of really good orchestras and players can be prohibitive. Otherwise, one would use a real orchestra all the time.

Bottom line for me is - if I'm going to write some absolute crap - then at least try and make it sound good.

[nickysnd]

It was opinions, "votes", and good fortune that permitted the music of Bach to survive to be heard today. Without those opinions, it would have been lost and neither you nor I would have ever had the opportunity to hear it, let alone discuss it.
You forgot Mendelssohn. An enlightened individual. Do you want to speculate about, what if Mendelssohn didn't do this, and what if other people didn't do that, and what if Snow White was Ebony Black and the Seven Dwarfs were Nine Giants? :D FWIW, I think it would be pointless to presume about what the present would be if the past was different. It has a name in literature, don't know it, I don't care much for terms and theory...

We've already lost a huge portion of Bach's music, since we have nothing left of his improvised works.
Why looking at the empty half of the bottle and cry? Look at the full half of it and rejoice! :)

So who preserved and maintained the music that we do have, over the years, keeping the manuscripts safe from fires, prepared it all to be mass-produced when the printing press was invented? Whoops... I guess it must have been lowly, unworthy underlings.
We don't know anything about the people you are talking about, whether they were underlings or not, worthy or not (worthy, of what?), low, high, etc. I guess they were, for various reasons, interested in preserving manuscripts.

Speaking of the printing press, how much of Bach's music can we actually verify against the originals? Can we vouch for the authenticity of all of Bach's perfect music?
You think I would care if Bach only signed it and that music was actually composed by someone he hired to compose? Because I wouldn't. Just like I don't care if Shakespeare's plays were written by an anonymous guy with the same name. :D

Brace yourself... you will cry when you see some of the photos on this web site:

http://www.raptusassociation.org/bachoriginals_e.html
You presume that I care about Bach's manuscripts. FYI, I don't, at the moment. Just as well as, at the moment, I don't care about saving the whales, preserving the Amazon forest, preventing climate change, etc. You want to speculate about the possibility that no one would care (or would have cared) about Bach's manuscripts? That won't make me care about them. But don't worry, there is always plenty of people caring for plenty of things. You want me to praise them for doing what they are interested to do?

I only care for the things that interest me, just as you only care for the things that interest you. I never assumed that, since you care about A, then you, logically and necessarily, should care about B. So why should you presume and assume things about me?

And generally, what's with this fake interest in me? (also, from another guy, in my music... :rolleyes:)

Can we now come back to music, styles, what makes composers recognizable, and so what if they are recognizable? :)

[nikolas]

And generally, what's with this fake interest in me? (also, from another guy, in my music... :rolleyes:)
Here's a 3rd challenge for this thread: GUESS! :D:D:D:D (as if 4 smileys are not enough, this is a joke...)

And, BTW, why do you assume that the interest is fake? I can speak for myself, of course, and I can say that based on your posts, and words and what appears to be the way you're thinking, one can make assumptions about the person behind them. It's only natural. Notice that I speak nothing of what sort of assumptions negative or possitive!

It's quite natural, after 2500 letters exchange in this forum (2500 posts), one would be curious to know a little more about the person who knows so much and talks/writes so much (no sarcasm in any of these two).

It's quite usual in forums, such as this, to post pictures of oneself, to post some information, to post pics of a studio, etc. Counterpoint's avatar is showing... counterpoint. Dallas composer, you can find a lot about him and he exchanges thoughts and compositions with other composers. Me, I'm an open book (though some might say that I'm showing off ;)).

OF course, I have also seen many people to prefer the anonymity of the Internet. I don't exactly get that, but I respect it (LEX for example. I've no idea who he is, only what he drives! :D). It is however only logical to ask further questions the more you get to 'meet' someone else, don't you think?

___________________

In order for anyone not to think that I went completely off topic (which I almost have), I have to say that I find that who we are, which is defined by numerous factors, like for example if we were Romanian, or Canadian, or Greek, also inputs a tiny bit in our compositions. Same with the family we're with, where we live, what job we do, etc... It's a well know fact (or myth), that Charles Ives developed his highly individual voice partly because of his father and the work he did...

A strong influence of Charles's may have been sitting in the Danbury town square, listening to his father's marching band and other bands on other sides of the square simultaneously. George Ives' unique music lessons were also a strong influence on Charles; George Ives took an open-minded approach to musical theory, encouraging his son to experiment in bitonal and polytonal harmonizations. Charles would often sing a song in one key, while his father accompanied in another key

So, in conclusion, I find that knowing more about the composer, also helps 'understand' or take in the spiritual part of a composition by that composer.

[nickysnd]

OF course, I have also seen many people to prefer the anonymity of the Internet. I don't exactly get that, but I respect it
Cool. Now everybody knows that you respect it. Back on topic -
I find that knowing more about the composer, also helps 'understand' or take in the spiritual part of a composition by that composer.
So do you think that knowing more about Mozart's private life, personal habits, and all that personal stuff -- any of that tells you anything about his music? Tells you more about his music? Tells you anything about the spiritual part of a composition?? If it does, what IS it, what does it tell you? How is it that details from the private life of a composer do make you understand anything about his music? Understanding what exactly? Examples please.

[OneThrow]

I think I need a cold shower.

I'd like to lay this one to bed. I couldn't care less what nickysnd's music sounds like, unless he introduces it into the debate. Neither does anyone else here (sorry nicky) except nickysnd himself of course. We're all rivals of a sort. If it was good we'd pan it. If it was bad we'd pan it. Someone might then ask him what he had for breakfast before he wrote it. Does that sound silly to you. It should, because it is.

It would be okay to introduce music examples to illustrate style and its importance in the compositional process. If anyone wants to do that I'm all ears.

To move the debate on a little. How about style and its place in musical composition as opposed to content. Earlier I said I think of myself more a "freedom of imagination composer" rather than the other sort (composer?:D). Someone might want to follow that tag. (I realise that's a bit more boring than the fireworks we've had so far, but someone's gotta try.)

EDIT

By the way brilliant deabte so far. Riveting stuff.

(Everyone's going to see through that.)
What do you mean?
(You know.)
I don't know.
(They'll think you don't mean it.)
Well, I do so shut up. And sit back and learn.
(Sorry I spoke.)

[OneThrow]

Nikolas

This is OT, sorry I'll keep it short. I don't know anything about Greek composers. Can you suggest a couple of names I should look up and listen to? I found 80 names in wikipedia and thought maybe you could give me start.

Thanks.

[nikolas]

Am I to assume that everybody now knows that you prefer anonymity? Cool if this is so. I still don't get it and I can't understand it...

So do you think that knowing more about Mozart's private life, personal habits, and all that personal stuff -- any of that tells you anything about his music? Tells you more about his music? Tells you anything about the spiritual part of a composition?? If it does, what IS it, what does it tell you? How is it that details from the private life of a composer do make you understand anything about his music? Understanding what exactly? Examples please.
Considering this is a meere text your tone still remains weird at best! (Edited out a different word).

Now, unless you missed it, there is an example right above you, regarding Charles Ives.

EDIT:

One throw. There's no other way of asking, but have you disabled the PM service? I can't PM you... :S

Names. Depends on the style.

3 of the most famous Greek composers, in my opinion (and as it seems the general consent), are
Xenakis (you must know this name, although born in Romania and living most of his time in France, we Greeks still persist on calling him Greek... :P)
Skalkotas, Nikos. Student of Schoember I believe, and one of the most promising ones, as the myth goes, he came back to Greece to be burried into the last desks of the violin sections... 12 tone and atonal mostly, to which Greece at that time was completely intolerant.
Christou, Jannis. He sadly died from a car acciden around the 70s, leaving behind already a rather large opus. Non conservative, mostly self taught, but with various lessons around the world (private lessons), he wrote music for the theater, for large mass of voice, using unconventional scores, gestures, etc... A pity that most texts he uses are in fact in Greek, so the meaning of the lyrics gets lost...

Not much in youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cexKb3kryBc Praxis (action in greek) for 12 (ensemble of 12). Lack of visual is missing all too valuable info...

Skalkotas's most famous works are the greek dances, which are (on the contrary to what I mentioned), completely tonal. Since youtube is providing plenty of examples of those here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfEhGy-FY9s (quartet for piano and winds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZazYFchLRI Xenakis Metastasis for orchestra.

[DallasComposer]

Nicky-san,

Fake interest?
Why do you perceive it as fake?
Is that more of a reflection of how you feel?
It’s not how I feel, my intention is sincere.

Bottom line is, you’re right, I should have just come out from the start and said that that comment was a bunch of BS, but I know when you post you get into a stream of consciousness and rant on and some BS slips through (but also a lot of great points you make) but I at least wanted to give you an honest opportunity to expand on this and explain what you meant.

Now, if I heard you say, “oh hell, sorry guys, I was in a rant and started talking some smack”, I think we would all have a beer and chuckle and over it full well knowing we all do that from time to time, talk some smack that is. Or if you said, “I want to express the love of humanity in what I compose”. I’d think, great ok, I can’t argue or dispute what you want to express, at least that’s an answer, at least you explain what it is or close to it anyway. You never really did address the question only evade it perhaps because it was smack or don't have the answer, either way, no big whoop brother.

It’s just from my background and work I do professionally I work with a lot of creative types, mostly in the visual arts, some in music. I see all types of humbleness and egos galore, usually the ones with big claims about their work I dig deeper to see if they can ‘walk the talk’ shall we say, some do, some don’t. Some of the best ones are the ones that do outstanding work with no attitude or inflated egos, their work speaks for them.

Stick with Ryuichi?
Heck yes!
Now here is a composer that I have followed his career for geezzz, almost 30 years now.
I have met and talked with him, hung out backstage with him in Japan. Lovely man.
Extremely intelligent, a very diverse composer, high artistic integrity, humble and goofy and funny as heck also! He is also very involved as an activist in the disposal of nuclear waste and DRM issues to name a few. His music does touch me deeply ‘spiritually’ but has also written some (IMHO) not so good music, I actually emailed him once about one of his CD’s about how awful it was, especially the artwork! I mentioned him on my site as an influence, not only for his music but his integrity, humbleness, honesty and who he is an artist.

Again, IMHO he has a very unique style in his writing, perhaps as Counterpoint suggested because I have listened to a lot of it, but besides that, his style is his signature which does fascinate me as to how composers develop that. Background, environment, personal taste, these all play a part.. Paul McCartney’s father played in a brass band and Paul heard a lot of brass band music as a child (someone correct me if I’m wrong please) and I can hear that influence in his music. Keith Richards loves Chuck Berry and I can hear that style in his playing and further evolved (some of it perhaps because Keith was always a bit intoxicated thus the sort of disjunctive, off rhythm feel he has). These are overly simplistic examples of course.

I do find the topic interesting and try and ask myself, do I have a personal style? But then again, I also think it is not something you can consciously set out to achieve. Through honesty in your work, it will develop on its’ own, IMO.

OneThrow .. choices we make? yeah to some extent but why do we make the choices we do about it? Especially when we make stupid choices and know we have and we do it again?

:p

peaCe
werd
out

[OneThrow]

Nikolas

Sorry. I didn't know about the PM service. I think I've just enabled it.

[nikolas]

One throw: Nope. I still can't PM you (not that I have any reason right now! :D

OneThrow has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her.

[JCL]

Style and Composition co-exist. Style is acquired; Composition is inspired.

[OneThrow]

Sorry Nikolas, I think I've done it this time.

Just had time to sit down and read your post. Thanks, that gives me a good start.:)

[OneThrow]

Again, IMHO he has a very unique style in his writing, perhaps as Counterpoint suggested because I have listened to a lot of it, but besides that, his style is his signature which does fascinate me as to how composers develop that. Background, environment, personal taste, these all play a part.. Paul McCartney’s father played in a brass band and Paul heard a lot of brass band music as a child (someone correct me if I’m wrong please) and I can hear that influence in his music. Keith Richards loves Chuck Berry and I can hear that style in his playing and further evolved (some of it perhaps because Keith was always a bit intoxicated thus the sort of disjunctive, off rhythm feel he has). These are overly simplistic examples of course.


There is an interesting video on youtube of Kieth Richard and Chuck Berry trying out an old Chuck Berry song.

We all bring something to our music that is unique if we are honest and truthful musically.


I do find the topic interesting and try and ask myself, do I have a personal style? But then again, I also think it is not something you can consciously set out to achieve. Through honesty in your work, it will develop on its’ own, IMO.

Indeed. Neither should you consciously set out to achieve such a thing. It doesn't matter at what level either.


OneThrow .. choices we make? yeah to some extent but why do we make the choices we do about it? Especially when we make stupid choices and know we have and we do it again?

:p

peaCe
werd
out

Choices we make... Well we make choices for a reason, you choose to do something because you think it is the right thing to do at the time. If it works you add it to the list of things you might do again, if it doesn't you make a note not to do it again. As these choices build up over time they become recognisable. If you make stupid choices over and over again, well, I don't know what to say about that. Its a free world, I suppose you get known for those stupid choices. :D

[nickysnd]

If you make stupid choices over and over again, well, I don't know what to say about that. Its a free world, I suppose you get known for those stupid choices. :D
“The higher up you go, the more mistakes you are allowed. Right at the top, if you make enough of them, it's considered to be your style.” -- Fred Astaire

[Counterpoint]

You forgot Mendelssohn. An enlightened individual.

Mendelssohn didn't discover Bach by himself. His great-aunt had collected and preserved many of the manuscripts. In her opinion, they were worth preserving. In Mendelssohn's opinion, they were worth reviving from the brink of near extinction.

This is not speculation, this is history.

and what if Snow White was Ebony Black and the Seven Dwarfs were Nine Giants?

That reminds me of something... a different time with different cultural values:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAO3Hxyq-uk

Why looking at the empty half of the bottle and cry? Look at the full half of it and rejoice! :)

Very good point, I can't argue with that. :cool: I still can't help but feel a bit of regret that we can't hear those missing works. That's just me though.

We don't know anything about the people you are talking about,

We do know that it was Mendelssohn's great aunt (who studied with one of Bach's sons) who had collected and preserved many of those manuscripts. There's no mention I can find about what her actual musical skills were, or if she even composed music herself.

You think I would care if Bach only signed it and that music was actually composed by someone he hired to compose?

True, that would not change the music itself... but then we wouldn't be able to say that it was Bach who was the great composer, if he'd stolen it from someone else.

You presume that I care about Bach's manuscripts.

I thought you might be interested. If you're not, then it might still be of interest to others who are reading this thread.

But don't worry, there is always plenty of people caring for plenty of things. You want me to praise them for doing what they are interested to do?

Bach was interested in composing music and you praise him for that, so why not praise others for doing what they are interested in, especially if they do it with passion and sincerity?

I never assumed that, since you care about A, then you, logically and necessarily, should care about B. So why should you presume and assume things about me?

The music of Bach and the original manuscripts are very related topics (not A and B, but oranges and orange peels). I was thinking that if you care about A, then you might be interested in A'.

And generally, what's with this fake interest in me? (also, from another guy, in my music... :rolleyes:)

Hmm, I didn't think I was asking anything specifically about you. Out of curiosity how did I imply that I had a fake interest in you?

As for the other who did express an interest in you, I think they explained themselves already. :)

Can we now come back to music, styles, what makes composers recognizable, and so what if they are recognizable? :)

Sure, though I did post some thoughts on this a few pages back and either nobody read them or bothered to reply.

- Matt

[nickysnd]

I have repeatedly asked and insisted to get back to the topic, but I see some people have a flaming issue...:rolleyes:
You never really did address the question only evade it perhaps because it was smack or don't have the answer, either way, no big whoop brother.
You may call "evasive" whatever you want, but I have addressed your question several times in different ways, but apparently there is a communication barrier between us. Now, what you were referring to as "smack" was this:
We have little to no control of how our music is perceived. Pleasing the client has been moved from the first to the last priority to me. The first two are: serving the music, then serving an idea. If the listener fails to get these two, then that's my material loss and his spiritual loss.
If I listen to your music and am not moved and I don't get that you are 'serving the music' and 'serving an idea' ... I understand that your loss is your loss, but how is it my loss and what exactly is a 'spiritual loss' by not getting your music?
That's what started the flame, right? Now let me translate to you what my words meant to say:

"We have little to no control of how our music is perceived."
-- I think no misunderstanding about that.

"Pleasing the client has been moved from the first to the last priority to me. The first two are: serving the music, then serving an idea."
-- This means that I serve: the music, an idea, a client. In that order. Pretty straightforward, I believe.

"If the listener fails to get these two, then that's my material loss and his spiritual loss."
-- And that's the biggie: someone's spiritual loss. Wow, how could I say that? If that's not arrogance, then that is "BS," "smack," etc., also things like: "Nicky-san, I want to listen deeper to your music, for I want to be enlightened but I'm afraid I might be missing something, so would you post something and then explain me what I'll be missing?" Alright, Dewey-san, listen to this (http://bb.xieke.com/files/jbymn2908.mp3), then tell me what level of enlightenment did it lift you to, and then I'll tell you what you missed and what's your spiritual loss. Deal?

Coming back to what I meant by "spiritual loss" in that infamous post. Let me explain. If there is "spiritual gain," and I believe there is, then there's also "spiritual loss." Now: you want me to define spiritual gain? Can you define it? Can anyone? I'd say, that's impossible to define. Yet spiritual gain does exists. Same with spiritual loss: can't be defined, yet it exists. Have you heard of dyslexia? It's a well defined illness, but it doesn't apply only to written words. It's also when you hear something but can't make much sense out of it. Well, dyslexia is an extreme form of spiritual loss. There are less severe forms of spiritual loss that happen all the time. Of course, there could be also the possibility that the message is in a language inaccessible to you, like a Heine poem written in German. You won't make sense out of it unless you speak German. But even if you do speak German, it's quite possible that you will miss a great deal of poetic/spiritual marvels, which will remain hidden to you, for various reasons. Well, missing out those marvels will be your spiritual loss.

When you're a composer, and you have a great idea, and you're in an enlightened spiritual state, and you put that into music -- then it's there. Done. When someone comes and listens and says it's nonsense, then that's his spiritual loss. Simple. That's all I said and all I meant. And that's the best I could put it. I can only hope that now you see what I meant by spiritual loss. You may call it "BS," "smack," and whatever you want, and rest assured that I won't discuss again such things as "enlightenment" and "spirituality." I've had enough.

Uhm, Counterpoint -- your racist innuendo was particularly nasty, but at least I have learn a little something about your ways.

[DallasComposer]

(must be read in a John Wayne circa 1945 tone of voice)

Deal?

We in Texas, don’t make deals with punks, they have to prove themselves first.

Your very opening line, we and the boys decided is pure BS.

I have repeatedly asked and insisted to get back to the topic

Where’s that stated we’d like to ask (some of us boys can’t read so well, … stop poking me Bobby!)

We call dat der politicking, basically I guess you call trying to save yer a$$.

When you're a composer, and you have a great idea, and you're in an enlightened spiritual state, and you put that into music -- then it's there. Done. When someone comes and listens and says it's nonsense, then that's his spiritual loss. Simple.

Well heck-der-gollie, I tell der nicky ole boy,

It’s your ‘spiritual loss’ if you don’t get BT, Harry Partch, Phillip Glass, John Cage and all the others you seem to throw to the wayside so casually as if you really amounted to a piece of .. well you know .. dirt .. hell we all like to read the tabloids about the death of fatrock, .. is he really dead? ... OMG!! … I heard it was trio of bandits that killed him, anyone know?

Shut up and compose and impress us.

Walk the talk brother

[DallasComposer]

too much white wine .. hicup!

;):p

[Counterpoint]

I have repeatedly asked and insisted to get back to the topic, but I see some people have a flaming issue

I thought we were having a discussion. :confused:

Uhm, Counterpoint -- your racist innuendo was particularly nasty, but at least I have learn a little something about your ways.

My racist innuendo? That's interesting. I was not even alive in the 1940's when that cartoon was made.

I only posted that link as an aside, since you had mentioned "Ebony Black and the Nine Giants" which made me remember that video.

I don't recall even expressing an opinion about that video, so how does that link tell anything about me except that I knew of its existence?

- Matt

[zuijlen]

I feel fortunate that I am able to enjoy many kinds of music and composers, old and new. Some of them have been mentioned in this thread: Harry Partch, Cage, Xenakis, Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky, and others. I may not like everything by each composer. Sometimes I have a favorite work. But they all have given me something in their own way and I appreciate that.

For me it's not a competition; I'm not interested in questions who is the best or who is in conversation with the Universe, Buddha, or whatever or whomever. I'm not saying those conversations are unimportant. However, it does not play a role in my music selection or appreciation.

I would like to hear the music, though. For me, the sounding result is primary. It may not be what the composer had in mind, but what is one to do. I judge art by the result, whether it's painting, sculpture, film, dance, or, indeed, music.

I do listen, and it depends on the circumstances what music will move me at what time. A small collection of (classical) music works are like old friends. When I grew up my parents had a subscription to a classical music series and those are the works I carry along and will recognize any time, I think.

It's also very personal and there is no right or wrong here. Others will have grown up with different music and they will carry that along with them. Maybe they did grow up without any music, although that seems unlikely.

As a composer I do not feel the need to measure myself against other composers, in general. I like Bach very much, but he did his thing and I do mine, as I should. Again, this is not a match.

I've thought about the style question, but beyond the fact that you are able to recognize certain elements of a composer's work as typical for that composer, I don't know if there's much else you can say about it. Other than of musicological significance, is it important?

[OneThrow]

I've thought about the style question, but beyond the fact that you are able to recognize certain elements of a composer's work as typical for that composer, I don't know if there's much else you can say about it. Other than of musicological significance, is it important?

That is the difficulty with framing a question of an esoteric nature and hoping to promote a debate. I don't think you can dismiss style as an affectation, but how can you characterise it in a meaningful way?

I thought long and hard before I framed the question but it is perhaps too general. Maybe it would be more interesting to consider style as a set of innate rules that evolve as the composer evolves. But then if you are talking about yourself how do you know what the rules are? And if you are talking about someone else, that is analysis, that comes after the fact and by that time the rules are dead and anyway open to conjecture. It’s tough. There's something there but I'm not sure what it is.

[OneThrow]

Sure, though I did post some thoughts on this a few pages back and either nobody read them or bothered to reply.

- Matt

I did read them and although I didn't respond directly I took them into account with my subsequent posts that were on topic.

In truth the topic is not that easy to talk about, but the side issues sure are!;)

[paulwr]

I don't like oversimplifying complex issues, but to me, what's going on when you recognize someone's style is you are recognizing the composers habits..... I just don't see any more to it than that. And there are some composing habits out there I wouldn't mind having, to be sure. Long thread here, I'm sure this has been stated numerous times.......

-Paul

[nikolas]

Paul,

No it hasn't been stated in such a successful and elegant way. It took me plenty more words than you to say the same thing around page... 2 or something... :D

I think you are right!

And, if I may add, what is also important is the audience, the listener.

Two possible options here:

A. The listener has NEVER heard anything by the composer before. The only way to understand the personal choice, is for him to have never listened anything like that before. Something unique then. Something... new, for the listener. This MUST be a personal voice, no?

B. The listener has heard things by the composer before. In that case, the composers habbits kick in, as you say. Still, if at any moment one becomes confused and starts thinking about... pastiche, for example, then we can't really talk about personal voice, or style, can we?

If I may ask on something different? ( I did several pages back I believe).

Why is it important to have that. Jack of all trades seems a very good skill to have when you're in the media. Plus most, if not all, film composers are pastiches from other composers, with all due respect. Even Williams, who I admire hugely and I love most of his works that I know, is admitedely 'copying', or 'stealing' (and don't care for any Stravinskian quote, Nickysnd), Stravisnky and others. It's not bad and in the film world he's come to be accepted for what he is (and well done, cause he's amazing. Let's be clears! He's brilliant an extremely talented composer, one of hte best of the 20th century), but it still remains that people 'educated' in classical music can spot many many references, which does post the question: Is it him? Is it HIS voice? It is HIS usage in films, that's for sure, Stravisnky didn't do any films, Shostakovich did, but is it HIS voice?

It is obvious that it's not important. At least obvious for me, cause I don't believe in black and white. He is the best paid composer, he is admired by many people (including me, I can't stress it enough), and he is constantly working in films, with great results I find. So unique or no unique, in the case of Williams, doesn't seem to make much difference...

In the case of well known names in the classical world, I think that each composer is 'easily' recognisible, once you know them. You can tell Ligeti from Messiaen, Boulez from Adams, Reich from Takemitsu...

[OneThrow]

Compser's habits. Funnily enough although this is a long thread it hasn't been mentioned before. Of course that encompasses good and bad habits. Habits that lead a composer up a blind alley and habits that lead to the next level.

Sorry if I've hijacked your idea paulwr, but its damned good.

Habits picked up over a lifetime of composing define a compser, from methods of orchestration to the type of music he chooses to write.

We learn from copying other people and applying what we have learned to our own work, if it sticks it becomes a habit.

That's ignoring content,

Ah Nikolas you beat me. I had to answer the phone then you know....

[nikolas]

HA!

I got here first! :P

[OneThrow]

I'm not aware of any straight copying by John Williams, but I am conscious of very similar writing, and that would be dictated by the needs of the film. And let's face it he's pretty good at serving the needs of the film (understatement alert).

But this is where my point about choices comes in. He chooses to do that because for him it is the right thing to do. He becomes recognised for the sort of choices he makes; it becomes recognised as a "style". But in reality it is the composer in action, doing what he does best. Again no content involved. This is possibly where the lines between what a composer is about and a perceived style become blurred.

[nickysnd]

Even Williams, who I admire hugely and I love most of his works that I know, is admitedely 'copying', or 'stealing' (and don't care for any Stravinskian quote, Nickysnd), Stravisnky and others. It's not bad and in the film world he's come to be accepted for what he is ...
No, Williams is not bad, no bad at all, and you admire him hugely.

You may not care for Stravinskian quotes, but I do. Here is THE notorious "Stravinskian" quote:
"Lesser artists borrow; great artists steal."
-- Igor Stravinsky

( insert examples:
"Good artists copy; great artists steal."
-- Pablo Picasso

"Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal."
-- TS Elliot

end of KNOWN examples )

Great artists steal, indeed. Or, he might have said: "It's stealing that makes a great artist." At least that would have been original. But then again, that's not stolen, so not worthy for a great artist.)

And here are a few Stravinskian stupid quotes:
"And there is only one real function of film music – namely, to feed the composer!"
(no comment)


"And – to ask a question myself – why take film music seriously? The film people admit themselves that at its most satisfactory it should not be heard as such. Here I agree. I believe that it should not hinder or hurt the action and that it should fill its wallpaper function by having the same relationship to the drama that restaurant music has to the conversation at the individual restaurant table. Or that somebody's piano playing in my living-room has to the book I am reading." (my underlines)
(How's that for dyslexia? By pure coincidence, I have just mentioned it one or two posts back. "Strange" how things connect, ain't it?)


"When, for commercial reasons, they [filmmakers] employ a composer of repute they want him to write this kind of "not very new" music – which, of course, results in nothing but musical disaster."
(While, of course, "very new" music is a sheer marvel by its very nature.)


"Music can be useful, I repeat, only when it is taken for itself. It has to play its own role if it is to be understood at all. And for music to be useful to the individual we must above all teach the self-sufficiency of music, and you will agree that the cinema is a poor place for that! Even under the best conditions it is impossible for the human brain to follow the ear and the eye at the same time."
(Impossible ... for the ... human brain ... to follow the ear and the eye at the same time?? Impossible perhaps for the "stravinskian brain.")


Already too many stupid quotes for one post. More of Stravinsky's similar remarks here:
http://www.filmmusicsociety.org/news_events/features/2003/101003.html

also here:
http://www.filmmusicsociety.org/news_events/features/2003/101703.html

and, the cherry on the top, the reply of an intelligent person of real intellectual finesse, also exquisite film composer, here:
http://www.filmmusicsociety.org/news_events/features/2003/102403.html

[OneThrow]

I have only read the first article in your post nicky. And I am not disagreeing with what Sravinksy has to say, it is after all a very interesting opinion. I wonder would he have said the same thing had he not been forced to include his music in Walt Disney's "Fantasia". It is my undertsanding that it would have been used with or without Stravinsky's consent because of lack of copyright. Rite of Spring is a tour de force (sorry about the French) in anyone's language and arguably his masterwork (if such a thing exists), certainly not the normal fodder for a "cartoon".

Certainly if I had written such a piece and it was being used in this fashion(this is pure flight of fancy you understand) I would have not felt too kindly about films and music. I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm just saying it puts an interesting perspective on things.

EDIT

Those quotes at the top of your post are brilliant. They make you feel kinda humble don't you think.

Read most of the other two articles.

Well worth the read too. Thank you. It seems clear that Stravinsky's ideas take root in another age, an age before films (or films in they way we know them). That doesn't make him wrong, but it does make you respect his opinions, because you know you couldn't have thought of those things yourself. A very interesting historical record.

[nickysnd]

I have only read the first article in your post ...
I highly recommend the third one (by Raksin), especially after reading the first two (by Stravinsky), and in relation to them. For example:

IGOR STRAVINSKY:
Music explains nothing; music underlines nothing. When it attempts to explain, to narrate, or to underline something, the effect is both embarrassing and harmful. What, for example, is "sad" music? There is no sad music, there are only conventions to which part of the western world has unthinkingly become accustomed through repeated associations.


DAVID RAKSIN:
Mr. Stravinsky goes on to ask, "What is 'sad' music?" I confess that I find this question narrow, contemptuous, disillusioned, insensitive, precious – and deaf. Does the man who grew up in the land of Tchaikovsky and Moussorgsky really ask what is sad music? Ask the artist who painted Guernica what is horror, the author of the Twenty-ninth Psalm what is exaltation.
:cool:

EDIT -
For the connoisseurs, Stravinsky sounds (in that quote clearly, but also in some other places in those articles), quite a bit like certain "authors" of pixelated music. It really makes me think that "musical dyslexia" might be more than a serious possibility. Just think of Raksin's: "insensitive... and deaf." Of course, he was referring to Stravinsky's question, but maybe there's more to it. Many avantgarde composers seem to share similar views with Stravinsky's, and their music sounds completely un-emotional and meaningless and completely unrelated to a normal human being. Normal human beings can relate to most music, of most cultures and periods, EXCEPT avantgarde music. Anyways, it's at least a good subject for a discussion.

[OneThrow]

And they remained friends.

It makes any discussion we have here pale into insignificance.

Yep read the third one.;)

[OneThrow]

I don't know a lot of Stravinsky's music, but it certainly doesn't seem unemotional. And the more I think of Stravinsky's comments, the more I think of them as coming from a bygone age. Composers are creators not analysers, they have sharp minds, but best for writing music.

Avantgarde music: that's a tough one. Don't know if I can say anything useful on that. For the majority of the music listening public it has no appeal that's true. As for its worth, well, I don't know. It wouldn't be fair for me to talk of value, as you say an interesting topic for discussion.

[nikolas]

You may care about Internet anonymity but I don't! Nickys' full name is ....... :D:D

You have to be kidding me Nickysnd! I mean this is a joke, right? You won't post your music, you won't post anything about you really, but you won't even post your own words, only using others! Heck, your signature is also a quote!

LMAOROFL!

[nickysnd]

If you haven't noticed yet, I don't care much about egos, not even my own. I care for personal privacy instead, like any normal person. I remember you said you respect it, in this very thread. I hope you will remember that too. Besides, what's with this completely immature post of yours? Did you drink anything toxic, or smoked anything illegal? Can't you control yourself? Are you obsessed, possessed? Then what is that prevents you from dropping these incessant personal attacks? Do they make you feel intelligent, funny, superior in any way? Is your ego the issue perchance? Just drop it man.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, but maybe next time you'll bring up some points of a little broader interest.

Once again, back on topic -
Composers are creators not analysers, they have sharp minds, but best for writing music.
True, but some composers, like Raksin, have sharp minds also for analysis.;)

Schoenberg was a brilliant analyst too. Rimsky-Korsakov as well. Hector Berlioz. Robert Schumann. Bela Bartok. Olivier Messiaen. And many others. The problem of Stravinsky in those articles is that he didn't realized how completely out of place he was in regard to film and film music. And his analysis of the function of film music is nothing but silly, even idiotic at times. Not to mention that his theory about the inexpressiveness and meaninglessness and emotionless-ness of music in general is completely ludicrous and embarrassing for a composer of his weight. Some places I couldn't believe my eyes that Stravinsky could have written such things. I know composers exaggerate sometimes, when getting excited, but Stravinsky was, cold-minded, writing an essay. That wasn't a heated interview but a written essay for a newspaper. Now, does what he said change anything about Petroushka, Sacré, or Firebird? Of course not.

Another interesting point about Stravinsky is that he has changed his personal style at least twice: first he completely abandoned Russian vein for neoclassicism, then he abandoned neo-classicism for atonalism (I'm not sure if it happened in that exact order, history doesn't interest me). Point is: how about "personal voice" vs. "style" then? It seems that, for Stravinsky, styles (neo-classicism, atonalism) were more important that his personal voice, don't you think? Also, the more he changed his styles, the less people cared about his new music. Isn't that tragically ironic?

[nikolas]

If you haven't noticed yet, I don't care much about egos, not even my own. I care for personal privacy instead, like any normal person. I remember you said you respect it, in this very thread if I remember correctly. I hope you will remember that too. Besides, what's with this completely immature post of yours? Did you drink anything toxic, or smoked anything illegal? Can't you control yourself? Are you obsessed, possessed? Then what is that prevents you from dropping these incessant personal attacks? Do they make you feel intelligent, funny, superior in any way? Is your ego the issue perchance?

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, but maybe next time you'll bring up some points of a little broader interest.
Let's take a big deep breath and examine my post and your post and have a little... "fun", since you think I'm funny...

Did I share any personal infromation anywhere? I don't see it anywhere... Unless I'm some kind of a phycho of sorts who knows certain things... :p

So this is off...

Is there the word "ego" in any place in my post? Don't think so... Where exactly am I praising myself immensly that the ego part is taking placce?

Personal privacy, I do respect it and don't see any evidence to the contrary. ;)

Now, according to you my post indicates that:
a. I'm immature
b. I drunk too much
c. I'm high
d. Can't control myself
e. I'm obsessed or possessed (do you really believe in possession? :D)
f. It feels that my post made me feel intelligent, superior or funny in any way.
g. That I've made a personal attack once more.

Now, what is the worst personal attack? That I said you don't post your music (as asked here, more than once from more than 1 member), that you won't post your personal information (which you haven't while my full name, DCs name and counterpoints name is there, quite in front of you in their signature), or that you post quotes and that your signature is a quote as well?

I mean! WOW! IF anybody calls me names, I'll backfire that they post quotes! This should hurt them!

or

That you said, I drink, I'm high, I'm egomaniac (at least something about my ego), that I can't control myself, that I'm obsessed and possessed and that I'm imature?

hmmm... Let me think for a minute here... hmmm....





Ok! I decided! It's far far far worst for somebody to say that I don't post my music rather than tell me that I'm high, drunk, uncontrollable, possessed or obsessed... Yeah, that is... (Peter from family guy voice).


onethrow:

Messiaen, for example, has created a huge school of analysis in Paris (and France in general as far as I know) and his school still remains very well know. Plus, I personally fine, that analysis is one of the greatest tools for composers to learn further techniques...

[nickysnd]

Let's take a big deep breath and examine my post and your post and have a little... "fun", since you think I'm funny...

Did I share any personal infromation anywhere? I don't see it anywhere... Unless I'm some kind of a phycho of sorts who knows certain things... :p

So this is off...

Is there the word "ego" in any place in my post? Don't think so... Where exactly am I praising myself immensly that the ego part is taking placce?

Personal privacy, I do respect it and don't see any evidence to the contrary. ;)

Now, according to you my post indicates that:
a. I'm immature
b. I drunk too much
c. I'm high
d. Can't control myself
e. I'm obsessed or possessed (do you really believe in possession? :D)
f. It feels that my post made me feel intelligent, superior or funny in any way.
g. That I've made a personal attack once more.

Now, what is the worst personal attack? That I said you don't post your music (as asked here, more than once from more than 1 member), that you won't post your personal information (which you haven't while my full name, DCs name and counterpoints name is there, quite in front of you in their signature), or that you post quotes and that your signature is a quote as well?

I mean! WOW! IF anybody calls me names, I'll backfire that they post quotes! This should hurt them!

or

That you said, I drink, I'm high, I'm egomaniac (at least something about my ego), that I can't control myself, that I'm obsessed and possessed and that I'm imature?

hmmm... Let me think for a minute here... hmmm....





Ok! I decided! It's far far far worst for somebody to say that I don't post my music rather than tell me that I'm high, drunk, uncontrollable, possessed or obsessed... Yeah, that is... (Peter from family guy voice).


onethrow:

Messiaen, for example, has created a huge school of analysis in Paris (and France in general as far as I know) and his school still remains very well know. Plus, I personally fine, that analysis is one of the greatest tools for composers to learn further techniques...
Thanks for sharing the info about Messiaen's "huge school of analysis in Paris and France" which "still remains very well known." The next sentence can hardly be called a point -- it's something about analysis being good for composers, right? The rest of your post is, at most, completely irrelevant to this discussion, proving only 1) how little you have understood from my previous post, and 2) how twisted and inflated that little understanding is.

So much for your points of broader interest. I would appreciate if the next time you'll make them of a little broader interest, if possible.

EDIT -
Anyone has any idea as of what would possibly justify the post #112? When considered in the context that it occurred, it looks to me kind of uncalled for and sort of unrelated to the discussion.

[OneThrow]

Composers are creators not analysers, they have sharp minds, but best for writing music.


I can see that I am going to have to think more carefully before I write.

Let me see what can I stick by in that above statement. Nickysnd and Nikolas you have succesully argued that composers are analysers, but I will attempt to stick by the rest of it.

What I should have said was, "Good composers are creators, they have sharp minds, best for writing music."


Another interesting point about Stravinsky is that he has changed his personal style at least twice: first he completely abandoned Russian vein for neoclassicism, then he abandoned neo-classicism for atonalism (I'm not sure if it happened in that exact order, history doesn't interest me). Point is: how about "personal voice" vs. "style" then? It seems that, for Stravinsky, styles (neo-classicism, atonalism) were more important that his personal voice, don't you think? Also, the more he changed his styles, the less people cared about his new music. Isn't that tragically ironic?

I think you've got the order right. Neoclassicism I believe was a reaction to the massive orchestras and chromaticism of late romantic music. I find Stravinsky a bit uneven in terms of his use of neoclassicism of which I'm not entirely convinced. But I think you can still hear the Stravinsky of the earlier period at work in at least some of this music, for example the Symphony in Three Movements. I don't know any of his atonal works.

Stravinsky in terms of style vs personal voice: for neoclassicism I would simply say I can sometimes hear the composer at work, although possibly not in everything. I suppose the wonder of Stravinsky's embracing of neoclassicism is how he managed to do it at all. Its not a small re-evaluation, its a complete about face. So yes Stravinsky is a very tough example to explain in terms of personal voice.

And change of style was important to Stravinsky, maybe even more important than personal voice.
Orson Welles did "Citizen Kane" first, Einstein arguably did his best work before he was 26. And Stravinsky did the 3 great ballets. Sometimes people do their best work when they are young.

[nikolas]

A composers work is... to compose (in strict terms), not to analyse.

On how to become one a composer, it does take some training, no matter formal or informal, or self taught, or whatever (not the point of this discussion). I, personally again, find that analysis falls into one of the things which help the composer train, become better, self aware, etc.

Stravinsky is an excellent example really, to what we're talking about! He effectively changed styles completely, 3 times. His best works could be the 3 ballets, but I enjoy various other works, as... cleaner. Can't really judge as to which are the best, but I do understand what you mean, onethrow. :)

Picasso also changed quite a few times his style, if I know right.

I actually agree to that. Don't know if it's cheating or not to find a style and stick to it till the end. I mean Stravisnky has 3 'simmilar' ballets. All brilliant, all rightfully great! But after that, one might think that he's done that. And he did do that. They were successful. So he moved elsewhere... :-/

[Counterpoint]

True, but some composers, like Raksin, have sharp minds also for analysis.;)

Both of those articles (the Stravinsky and the Raksin articles) are fascinating to me. While I won't claim to 100% agree with either of them, I think they both make some very good observations about music.

The problem of Stravinsky in those articles is that he didn't realized how completely out of place he was in regard to film and film music. And his analysis of the function of film music is nothing but silly, even idiotic at times.

I can respect that you disagree with Stravinsky, but to label him as "idiotic" is, quite frankly, disgusting. Raksin presents many justifications for his own disagreement with Stravinsky, but he never once sinks to the level of branding or name-calling.

Actually he demonstrates a very good understanding of the film scoring process: The scenes are filmed, the producers decide what kind of music they want (even resorting to temp tracks - to illustrate what the film composer is expected to provide), which is what Stravinsky means when he says that they do not want "new music".

His comparison to ballet is also valid. In a classical ballet, the music and choreography were created by a collaboration of the composer and the choreographer. One does not follow the other, and one does not dictate for the other. It is quite rare that a composer will have any say whatsoever in the overall presentation of a film.

I don't agree with Stravinsky about the wallpaper and aesthetics comparison. Wallpaper can make or break a room, which he failed to point out (or he simply did not care what his walls looked like). Wallpaper is all about aesthetics, just as film music is as well. The music can make or break the movie... it is still a symbiotic relationship, just in a different form from ballet, so I do agree with him that the two fields are not directly comparable. That doesn't make one field more important than the other though.

Film music is created with an expectation, while ballet, opera, and concert music are not. However, this distinction does nothing to invalidate film music as an "art".

Not to mention that his theory about the inexpressiveness and meaninglessness and emotionless-ness of music in general is completely ludicrous and embarrassing for a composer of his weight.

Stravinsky was saying that music itself has no emotion and that the listener is the one who decides what emotion they hear from it. Actually it's an interesting point. How many times does a composer write a piece of music with one emotion in mind while the audience might end up hearing a completely different emotion.

Drawing from my own experience, this can be very hit-and-miss. Sometimes I have tried to write something heroic sounding, but a listener might tell me they thought it sounded tragic. Was it my failure to communicate my idea, or was it the listener's failure to understand my music?

Let's look at an extreme example: "Piggies" by George Harrison. George intended for that song (by his own description) to be an anti-capitalist social commentary. Charles Manson, on the other hand, thought it was telling him to murder people and incite a racial war. Needless to say poor Mr. Harrison was quite horrified to hear his music had been interpreted in this way.

Music can not have a "universal message", which is in my opinion what Stravinsky was trying to say.

Some places I couldn't believe my eyes that Stravinsky could have written such things. I know composers exaggerate sometimes, when getting excited, but Stravinsky was, cold-minded, writing an essay. That wasn't a heated interview but a written essay for a newspaper. Now, does what he said change anything about Petroushka, Sacré, or Firebird? Of course not.

Stravinsky was entitled to his opinions. For some people, they are correct and accurate. For others they are wrong and misguided.

It is David Raksin makes many valuable and insightful points, but I find that his article is a bit of an overreaction to Stravinsky's article. In my opinion he is correct that film music is worthy of artistic consideration.

Another interesting point about Stravinsky is that he has changed his personal style at least twice: first he completely abandoned Russian vein for neoclassicism, then he abandoned neo-classicism for atonalism (I'm not sure if it happened in that exact order, history doesn't interest me). Point is: how about "personal voice" vs. "style" then? It seems that, for Stravinsky, styles (neo-classicism, atonalism) were more important that his personal voice, don't you think? Also, the more he changed his styles, the less people cared about his new music. Isn't that tragically ironic?

There's nothing tragic or ironic about that... he just changed his mind a few times, or for whatever reason got bored of writing one type of music and moved on to something that challenged him in a different way.

You bring up an interesting question though: If we were to study all of Stravinsky's music, would we be able to find his "personal voice" even when he switches musical styles? I don't know nearly enough about Stravinsky's music to make any coherent argument for this notion, but it might be fun to take several works from each stage of his musical career and see if there is some common, audible link between them.

- Matt

[Counterpoint]

Let me see what can I stick by in that above statement. Nickysnd and Nikolas you have succesully argued that composers are analysers, but I will attempt to stick by the rest of it.

What I should have said was, "Good composers are creators, they have sharp minds, best for writing music."

I'd broaden the first part to say that anyone with an opinion is an analyzer, composers or not. :)

I think you're right though, a composer uses their skills - analytical and creative - to serve their art. The act of composing could be considered as an act of self-analysis.


I think you've got the order right. Neoclassicism I believe was a reaction to the massive orchestras and chromaticism of late romantic music. I find Stravinsky a bit uneven in terms of his use of neoclassicism of which I'm not entirely convinced. But I think you can still hear the Stravinsky of the earlier period at work in at least some of this music, for example the Symphony in Three Movements. I don't know any of his atonal works.

That's a great start. So when you listen to some of his early works and some of his later works you are hearing something that can be recognized as part of Stravinsky?

It would be interesting to do a "blind test"... take an assortment of music by several different composers in varying points of their careers, and play them for a group of listeners who are not familiar with those composers (but who have an affinity for music and some analytical skills). It would be interesting to see how many of them could "sort" the music with no information other than the music itself (not even titles).


Stravinsky in terms of style vs personal voice: for neoclassicism I would simply say I can sometimes hear the composer at work, although possibly not in everything. I suppose the wonder of Stravinsky's embracing of neoclassicism is how he managed to do it at all. Its not a small re-evaluation, its a complete about face. So yes Stravinsky is a very tough example to explain in terms of personal voice.

What I wonder is if this is something that is really tangible, or if it is just a "sense" that one gets just from listening. Or is there some subconscious device at work here, like Stravinsky unknowingly putting his signature on his music and the listener unknowingly hearing it.

And change of style was important to Stravinsky, maybe even more important than personal voice.

Do style and personal voice have any actual relation to one another though? I would suspect most composers are not even aware that they have a personal voice, which could mean it would be impossible to place any kind of importance on it.

Orson Welles did "Citizen Kane" first, Einstein arguably did his best work before he was 26. And Stravinsky did the 3 great ballets. Sometimes people do their best work when they are young.

That's the key word though... "arguably". Someone's "best work" is really a judgement call. I find Mozart's first symphony to be quite amazing, and in some ways "better" than many of his later works. However, his later works demonstrate more experience and a more profound knowledge of the music itself.

- Matt

[OneThrow]

A composers work is... to compose (in strict terms), not to analyse.

On how to become one a composer, it does take some training, no matter formal or informal, or self taught, or whatever (not the point of this discussion). I, personally again, find that analysis falls into one of the things which help the composer train, become better, self aware, etc.



Analysis for a creative mind is different from someone using analysis to describe the processes in a piece of music. And by a creative mind a I mean a composer.

It doesn't really matter if the analysis is right or wrong it is what the composer does with it. Because it is going to bear fruit in his composition. So he won't be judged on how good his analysis is, it will be judged on how good his music is.

Analysis for learning is of course important otherwise how can you learn from a piece of music if you do not know what is going on?

So analysis has its place.

[OneThrow]

So when you listen to some of his early works and some of his later works you are hearing something that can be recognized as part of Stravinsky?


I always assumed it was something everyone did when they listened, comparing what they hear in one work with another.


Do style and personal voice have any actual relation to one another though? I would suspect most composers are not even aware that they have a personal voice, which could mean it would be impossible to place any kind of importance on it.


I really don't want to make too much of this idea of personal voice. It probably isn't important.


That's the key word though... "arguably". Someone's "best work" is really a judgement call. I find Mozart's first symphony to be quite amazing, and in some ways "better" than many of his later works. However, his later works demonstrate more experience and a more profound knowledge of the music itself.

- Matt

Like I said some people do their best work when they are young.;)

[nickysnd]

This is OT.
And his analysis of the function of film music is nothing but silly, even idiotic at times.
I can respect that you disagree with Stravinsky, but to label him as "idiotic" is, quite frankly, disgusting. Raksin presents many justifications for his own disagreement with Stravinsky, but he never once sinks to the level of branding or name-calling.
Thanks for your respect. There was no name calling and I haven't labeled anyone as idiotic. In fact I have called a few sentences idiotic, like these: "Music can be useful, I repeat, only when it is taken for itself" "music underlines nothing" "there is only one real function of film music – namely, to feed the composer". Should I mention all the reasons that would justify calling those remarks idiotic? Because I have at least six reasons in my mind right now, and perhaps I can double them in a couple of minutes. Every normal person would think those remarks are idiotic. Thing is, that particular essay is unusually full of idiotic remarks like that. That's why I called them idiotic. Because they truly are, and because there are so many of them. Also, I called them (remarks). Not called him (Stravinsky). Is that clear now?

As you put it: "to label [ahem] him as 'idiotic' is disgusting." After straightening up: <labeling [a certain thing] as idiotic>, that is disgusting. Did you just call me disgusting, or did you only call <labeling [a certain thing] as idiotic>, disgusting? I think it's the latter. Right? Now, what am I to think of you saying that I labeled Stravinsky as idiotic? What am I to think about you saying that I was calling names on Stravinsky?

If I'd say "that horse stinks so bad!" -- there are chances that someone will frown upon that and say: "That creature doesn't stink but it smells, and it actually smells good. Your politically incorrect remark is disgusting." So, it is disgusting because me said that a horse stinks bad. Perhaps I should have said: "That noble animal seems to emanate an interesting smell, but unfortunately I have a problem with my nose and, sadly, I can't fully enjoy it's distinguished flavour." Political correctness...:rolleyes: May I call political correctness - idiotic? Because it stinks really bad.:p

And BTW, that was not a "disagreement of opinions" between Raksin and Stravinsky. To say that, it would only political correctness. Truth is: Stravinsky was wrong, most of the time, and Raksin was right, most of the time. And the difference of intellectual class, in Raksin's favour, was plain as daylight.

End of OT. Sorry, it was just to straighten up a misunderstanding.

[zuijlen]

Every normal person would think those remarks are idiotic.
Does this give more weight to your opinion?

[nickysnd]

Does this give more weight to your opinion?
Of course not. My opinion was based on reason, not on the opinions of the others. Not everybody base their opinions on reason. Point taken, I shouldn't have mentioned other people, these sort of references sometimes create misunderstandings. Disregard the part about other people. Other people could have similar or different opinions that won't add (or subtract) anything to (or from) the "weight" of my opinion.

[Counterpoint]

There was no name calling and I haven't labeled anyone as idiotic. In fact I have called a few sentences idiotic, like these: "Music can be useful, I repeat, only when it is taken for itself" "music underlines nothing" "there is only one real function of film music – namely, to feed the composer". Should I mention all the reasons that would justify calling those remarks idiotic? Because I have at least six reasons in my mind right now, and perhaps I can double them in a couple of minutes.

Ok, I did confuse one thing... I had said you labeled Stravinsky as "idiotic". What I should have said is that you strongly implied he was an "idiot". Whether you meant that or not, it is how I (and no doubt others) interpreted your message. Thanks for the clarification.

Every normal person would think those remarks are idiotic.

I don't think his remarks are "idiotic". I think he had some valid reasons for stating those things, but I agree that he was wrong about some of them.

That's why I called them idiotic. Because they truly are

They are idiotic because they are truly idiotic?

Here's a little quote of yours from earlier in the discussion: "It may be financially rewarding, but it is morally degrading to adjust love poetry according to the pigs' sexual desires. Money can be made through many other ways than prostituting the music."

Now a Stravinsky quote: "The film makers know that they need music, but they prefer music which is not very new. When, for commercial reasons, they employ a composer of repute they want him to write this kind of 'not very new' music – which, of course, results in nothing but musical disaster."

You previously said that quote from Stravinsky was idiotic... but actually it looks like he is saying the same thing you wrote in that earlier post: Music that needs to be adjusted to suit the client's desires results in degradation of the music.

Why is one idiotic and not the other? (and note that as you explained in your post, I am only speaking of the ideas and not of the people who formed them)

Political correctness...:rolleyes: May I call political correctness - idiotic? Because it stinks really bad.:p

You may call political correctness whatever you like, but as a friendly suggestion, you might consider investing in one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothes_pin

And BTW, that was not a "disagreement of opinions" between Raksin and Stravinsky. To say that, it would only political correctness. Truth is: Stravinsky was wrong, most of the time, and Raksin was right, most of the time. And the difference of intellectual class, in Raksin's favour, was plain as daylight.

You seem to hold Raksin in high esteem (and I would agree), so read his comment in the footnote of the third article:

"You know, he said music doesn't express anything. I do not agree with that. But the point is, he's Stravinsky and I'm not."

What's interesting is that he interpreted Stravinsky's as "music doesn't express anything". Actually, what Stravinsky said was that music doesn't express anything by itself and that the emotion comes from the interpretation of the listener.

- Matt

[PaulR]

You may call political correctness whatever you like,
- Matt

Political correctness in music art or anything. Worst thing ever invented.

PC allows morons to hide behind mediocrity - and stifles real creativity. PC was invented by the British Labour Party to stop people taking the piss (rightly so) out of them and telling it the way it really is - to people of less intelligence than just about anything organic.

Political correctness should be banned from all walks of life - especially comedy.

[nickysnd]

Political correctness in music art or anything. Worst thing ever invented.

PC allows morons to hide behind mediocrity - and stifles real creativity. PC was invented by the British Labour Party to stop people taking the piss (rightly so) out of them and telling it the way it really is - to people of less intelligence than just about anything organic.

Political correctness should be banned from all walks of life - especially comedy.
Alright, I hate PCs, that's why I switched to Mac.:p Now, seriously, this is all comedy, so I'd like to address a bit this Political Correctness thingy, because it kind of floats around in this type of discussions.

For example: It is not Politically Correct to say "best work," "great composer," "best music," "perfection," and other stuff like that. That's "dealing in absolute," which is not Politically Correct. We all should keep our comments neutral, in such a way that no one could find anything reproachable. For a politically correct person, if I say say things like "Mozart's music is perfection" that means that I'm imposing value judgments on other people, so I should be ashamed of myself. People are equal, so there can be no absolute values as "perfection." The main idea is: Jim's perfection is Joe's crap, and vice-versa. Also, everybody and their grandma is entitled to an opinion. And grandma's opinion on Bach's music is equal to Mozart's opinion's on Bach's music. Music is just entertainment, just another commodity, like softdrinks. BTW, Champagne and 7Up are just different beverages, each one having its merits and shortcomings.

"Good"? -- Hmm... According to who? "Best"?? Wow, that's a sweeping statement. "Perfect"??? That's distasteful, yak. What if I don't like Mozart? Eh? That music is "perfect" maybe for you. Perfect, best, these are value judgments, which are things that we should refrain from. We should strive to always use expressions like: IMO, arguably, it seems to me (but perhaps I'm wrong), etc. Everything is relative. (or should I say: "IMHO, arguably, it seems to me that many things might be somewhat relative. But I may be wrong.";)) There is only opinions. There's no truth, only half-truths of equal value, which are nothing but half-lies. No hot and cold, only lukewarm. No up and down, just some sort of confused levity in between. Up and down depend on where your feet are. And where your head is. If your head is in a certain place, you can't call that place up, in absolutes, because your up is someone else's down. And it is right to be so, because it is Politically Correct.

Also, music is a democracy, so we should talk about it in Politically Correct terms. Bach's music -- "perfect" and "spiritually enlightening"?? Hmm, perhaps for some people yes and for others not. We are not even sure who wrote it. What if it's been written by his grandma? The basis of the PC paradigm is: we are not sure of anything. And that should humble us, and make us say things like: "IMHO, Viennese Classicism is arguably as artistically valuable as Hip-Hop," and "It seems to me that Snoop Doggy Dogg is as good composer as Beethoven was, because a simple counting of the votes (sales, downloads, etc.), might reveal that Snappy Dawg sales better than Beth Hoven (what was that dude's name again?:p). Political Correctness rules. If not, it should. If not yet, it will. Why? -- because you don't want to be wrong, do you? Well, Political Correctness allows you that. You can't go wrong with it. You can't go right either, if you ask me -- but my opinion is arguably as good as anyone else's. :)

Left can be Right and East can be West. Quantum Leap? Is that supposed to mean upwards? It may well be a Quantum Leap downwards. Because, you know, it has been scientifically determined that Up can be Down. More is less and less is more, you only know what you ignore. (that sounded nice, I guess that's how Nowhere Man would put it.;)) Wet is dry, big is small, and all that... Complete confusion, if you think of it. But maybe you think incorrectly. Politically Correctness is also the new School of Thought. Imagine one day we all will not only talk correctly, but, after talking correctly for sufficient time, we will also begin to think correctly. A Brave New World of correctly thinking creatures will emerge, replacing the obsolete world of arrogant snobs who dare to put Mozart above BT and Maria Callas above Britney Spears -- and, to ad insult to injury, even in absolute terms (yak, disgusting). No. The revolution of newspeak has begun. Liberty, fraternity, and... what was that other thing? uhm, ... well, anyways you got the idea. ... Ah, yes: equality! That was it! -- Equality. The beethoven is the equal of the snoop. Mozart, schmozart. Bach, blah-blah. Music is Entertainment. Enjoy!

End of PC rant.

[zuijlen]

I wish we could stay on topic... :rolleyes: I like PCs by the way, they've served me well! :D

[Counterpoint]

I wish we could stay on topic... :rolleyes: I like PCs by the way, they've served me well! :D

Yeah, would be nice... but just look at some of the "universal truths" we've discovered here by going off-topic:

There is much more music in a Mozart sonata than you, me, and everyone else in this forum, combined, will ever write.

Wow! How can anyone argue with that?

---

I like PCs too.

[OneThrow]

Back to the Stravinsky debate for a moment.
The Raksin article finishes with this.

"Music," says Mr. Stravinsky, "probably attended the creation of the universe." Certainly. It was background music.

It says to me 3 things.

1 It is an amusing put down.

2 Stravinsky – idealist. Raksin – realist.

3 Stravinsky elevates music to the highest level. Raksin does but is more pragmatic. If music was at the creation of the universe, it fullfilled a role, but it wasn’t the most important thing going on.;)

And as for being PC, this chap wasn't...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GMUYy3wmIA

[nickysnd]

I wish we could stay on topic... :rolleyes: I like PCs by the way, they've served me well! :D
I like PCs too.
On topic. For people who like PC:
Style. We have it whether we like it or not. It comes from the choices we make.

But it is more than that. Does it come from an unwritten set of rules that we follow, consciously or unconsciously?
There is no style, whether we like it or not. The choices we make are irrelevant, because tastes are different and everybody and their grandma is entitled to opinions of equal importance. You may or may not follow rules, consciously or unconsciously -- it doesn't matter, because people are different and music is a democracy, so some will vote in a way, some in another.

Language has a set of rules that allows us to converse. It allows unlimited freedom for self-expression and it allows unlimited styles of expression.

So. When someone is doing that killer track or an emotion defining cue, what is it that makes it undeniably their style and no one else’s?
Limited or unlimited styles of expression, it doesn't matter. Someone's "emotional cue" is someone else's "emotionless cue." Also, there is nothing "undeniable." That is talking in absolute. Not good, not good. Behave yourself. Learn to talk politically correctly and also to think politically correctly. And what is that "no one else's"? A style cannot be only someone's style. It can also be someone else's style, anyone's style. If you want, you may say that everyone's style is unique, because nothing is unique. If you insist, you may say that everybody is special, because that will mean that nobody is special. It's a little edgy, but it's still politically correct. Careful with this type of words though, because they come from a previous era that was politically incorrect.

Or to put it another way.
Do you think composers should be a – “freedom of imagination composer” - where chaos reigns supreme, or an – “I follow the rules composer” - where clients set the rules.
A composer should be a politically correct composer: it doesn't matter what his music sounds like, because the listeners and their grandmas will decide whether his music is good for them or not. You may call that "freedom of imagination composer," because there should be no restrictions of any sorts, aesthetic or unaesthetic. You may also call that “I follow the rules composer,” because he/she should follow the rules set by his/her listeners and their grandmas. Those rules are simple: don't try express anything with your music, because no one will bother to get what was your intentions to communicate. Music doesn't express anything except what we, the people, will decide, in different ways. Don't do the mistake to think that you are "enlightening" anyone with your stuff. Don't think that you are superior to anyone, because you ain't, we are all equals. In fact, we are superior to you, first because you are only one and we are many, and second because we are the judges of your music. So you better make your stuff fun and entertaining, for that's what we like.

Or should the composer be none of the above?
The composer should be nobody. He/she should do the stuff that we like. Then we will decide. Some will say it's good, others will say it's not so good, and everything in between. The usual routine of the Brave New World.

[Counterpoint]

There is no style, whether we like it or not. The choices we make are irrelevant, because tastes are different and everybody and their grandma is entitled to opinions of equal importance.

The composer should be nobody. He/she should do the stuff that we like. Then we will decide. Some will say it's good, others will say it's not so good, and everything in between. The usual routine of the Brave New World.

This is just substituting one extreme view for the opposite extreme view.

The only issue I have a point of contention with is the arrogance to deal in extremes: "Any normal person would see that Stravinsky's ideas are idiotic", "Bach's music is perfect, regardless of what anyone else might say".

So the speaker is allowed to express an "absolute truth" and nobody else is? This is exactly one of the issues Raksin took up with Stravinsky.

You find the music of Bach to be perfect? Fine, go ahead and state that... just don't follow that up with a comment that belittles everyone who doesn't agree with you. Had you said "Bach's music is perfect, when I listen to it, it takes me to a higher level." I would be free to agree (or disagree) with your opinion and believe me, I would agree with that because Bach's music is "great" to me too. When you say "Bach's music is perfect, and anyone who thinks otherwise must have broken ears."... well... sorry but I can't subscribe to that idea. I know some fine musicians who do not like Bach but I would never "lower" them for it or harp on about their "spiritual loss".

Extreme concepts are dead ends, not subject to discussion (exactly what Raksin said) and not very conductive to further learning.

- Matt

[OneThrow]

Political correctness should be banned from all walks of life - especially comedy.

I agree.

Nickysnd your attempts at political correctness didn't work. I much prefer your politically incorrect utterances. At least I understand them enough to know which bits I agree with and which bits I don't.

It seems that PaulR's post on political correctness has had the same effect as the emotion chip had on Data. How can it be turned off?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TFfG7MBiQQ

Maybe this can help.

"THE SEVEN COMMANDMENTS

1 Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2 Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3 No animal shall wear clothes.
4 No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5 No animal shall drink alcohol.
6 No animal shall kill any other animal.
7 All animals are equal."

There was another amendment.

"4 legs good, 2 legs better."

Eventually all of the above were crossed out and replaced with:-

"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME
ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS."
(Quotations from Animal Farm by George Orwell.)
The weekend is coming up, let's all chill out and have a good one. ;)

[zuijlen]

PC discussions are boring and soooo last century...

[OneThrow]

I am going to take a bold step (I know, completely out of character) and say this discussion has just about come to an end.

What have I learned? Well. I don't know actually. For me that is a good thing, it means the issues are still going round in my head. What will come out, who knows.

I asked about style and composition, and I realised right at the start it wasn't quite what I wanted. I talked about style as an innate set of rules. Someone else talked about habits and that's a completely different take, so I liked that.

There is yet a proper discussion to be had about rules, but not in this thread. It needs a sensibly framed proposition and at the moment I am not able to think of one. Probably because I don't know my own mind.

So to finish off I'd like to ask one more question if I may.

What would you most like to write if you had the chance and why?

Me, I'd like to write a symphony. Why? It’s a long held ambition. Sample libraries give me that opportunity. I've often thought about the symphonies of the great composers but it is a completely different proposition to go the whole hog and write one. As someone here said, "walk the talk".

See ya.;)

[Counterpoint]

What would you most like to write if you had the chance and why?

Me, I'd like to write a symphony. Why? It’s a long held ambition. Sample libraries give me that opportunity. I've often thought about the symphonies of the great composers but it is a completely different proposition to go the whole hog and write one. As someone here said, "walk the talk".

See ya.;)

I would also choose a symphony. If I could do that, it would mean I'd finally learned to write proper performance music. :D (The criticism I get the most often about any performance pieces I have written is that they "tend to sound like film/game music")

I think I'm a bit in the Brahms camp as far as my own attitude is concerned: the thought of writing a symphony intimidates me. However, it gives me much hope that Brahms was finally able to overcome his own obstacles and "walk the talk".

Cheers,

- Matt

[nikolas]

I write... I write a lot. Problem for me is getting it performed! :D Symphony is a form pretty much, a container to put your music. Not sure if I'd ever want that. I mean, I use forms in my music, but not in such 'outdated' (excuse the term, and don't stick to it), terms, like sonata or symphony. I usually come up with my own forms, good or bad, in the precomposition process.

That said though.

I have this great (what of coure appears to be great to me, although I know many people who are already dissagreeing with this and Matt, knows what I'm talking about), to score a letter which is on the verge between art (unintentional of course), and hugely insulting for many. But I'm being rather 'obsessed' by this letter and was thinking of scoring it for a large orchestra and choir.

So the problem lies. If I create a... piano piece, there are chances of getting a pianist to play it for you, even make a very decent computer rendering with todays samples/modules/synthetic programs. It is possible. But between a solo piano piece and a 80 piece orchestra + 300 persons choir there seems to be a huge gap.

So I will write a big (20 minutes) piece for big symphonic orchestra and big mixed choir. Getting it perform is the dream, composing and creating the score seems... somewhat safe that will happen. Then again, absolutely no idea if it will be good or bad! Thankfully onethrow, you didn't ask for quality just the what! :D:D:D

[Counterpoint]

So I will write a big (20 minutes) piece for big symphonic orchestra and big mixed choir. Getting it perform is the dream, composing and creating the score seems... somewhat safe that will happen. Then again, absolutely no idea if it will be good or bad! Thankfully onethrow, you didn't ask for quality just the what! :D:D:D

Dude, if that piece was written and performed, it would almost certainly be mentioned in a future book about controversial music. :D

- Matt

[OneThrow]

Dude, if that piece was written and performed, it would almost certainly be mentioned in a future book about controversial music. :D

- Matt

I seem to be missing something here. Nikolas, controversial?:eek:

[nikolas]

Matt: LOL! I'm actually seriously thinking a couple of orchestras (+ choirs) that I know the conductors and have them make a promise of sorts... My problem now lies that it won't be finished by the time my PhD will be done and since I would like to include it in my portfolio... Well... too late... Damnit! :D

Onethrow: I just PMed you! :D Enjoy! ;)

[PaulR]

I
It seems that PaulR's post on political correctness has had the same effect as the emotion chip had on Data. How can it be turned off?

Yes indeed. It takes Data seven years to get a joke. That happened to me - only it was for 11 years and turned out to be the Labour Party. Later he says ' I just love scanning for life forms'.

Good job he doesn't live in England. He'd be redundant.

I think Counterpoint's observation about Bach being perfect musically is interesting. I get the feeling that Counterpoint is using the subjective side of his brain here. In the end, even in music, one has to have benchmarks, otherwise we'd be in trouble. It matters not what one likes in the end - when talking generally, likes and dislikes are luxuries that are entirely personal and superfluous - unless it's a Friday night and you're drunk.

[Counterpoint]

I think Counterpoint's observation about Bach being perfect musically is interesting. I get the feeling that Counterpoint is using the subjective side of his brain here. In the end, even in music, one has to have benchmarks, otherwise we'd be in trouble. It matters not what one likes in the end - when talking generally, likes and dislikes are luxuries that are entirely personal and superfluous - unless it's a Friday night and you're drunk.

I'd agree that we have to have benchmarks, but what determines the benchmarks? Do they really exist on their own (which suggests they come from a vacuum), or is it the subjective popular opinion (or even a personal one) that sets the benchmark?

- Matt

[nickysnd]

I'd agree that we have to have benchmarks, but what determines the benchmarks? Do they really exist on their own (which suggests they come from a vacuum), or is it the subjective popular opinion (or even a personal one) that sets the benchmark?
The way you have put your question, also considering your previous views expressed in this thread, you suggest that it is always the latter.

If you think my "always" is an abuse, let's consider one particular case. Here is one so-called "benchmark":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL0u9QXNvEg&amp;feature=related

Question:
In the case you would agree that, arguably, some might consider that piece a "benchmark" -- do you think that "benchmark" comes from a vacuum, or do you think that "benchmark" is set by subjective popular opinion? Which of the two? In other words: Is that particular piece of music -- "absolute perfection" (as I call it), or is it just another piece of music, which happens to be an arbitrary "benchmark" set by some of its listeners (as you suggest that it's always the case)?

I can't say I find it greatly imaginative to create, yet another... sonata ... not sure if it takes an infinite deal of imagination to create Sonata No. 28 after having composed another 27 before that.
Question:
What do you think that lies behind that "yet another sonata" -- would you say it is something that may loosely be called: "great imagination"? Or would you say that it took a rather "small imagination" to write it? Or maybe something in between, like "mediocre imagination?" More simple, my question is: In terms of imagination, what lies behind that sonata, in your opinion?


To be fair, here is what I say -- and it is not my opinion, but an absolute truth (yes, exactly): what lies behind that sonata is the greatest possible imagination achievable by humans, which, in the lack of better words, I called "infinite imagination," because I cannot see the limit of it. Maybe your superior musical height permits you to see the limit of the imagination lying behind that sonata. If that is the case, care to describe a bit the imagination lying behind it? Is it limited? Small? Pretty good? What would you call it?

More generally, my point is, some "things" can be discussed, some can only be affirmed. On some "things" we can have opinions, on others we can't. Some "things" are simply there. We can have a glimpse of them, and just admire them, or we may be "blind" to them, or "dyslexic," and question their existence and/or value. Some "things" exist. Are real. Some other are illusions, subject of opinions, discussions, etc.

That sonata is not an illusion. It's real and it's perfection. And that, like it or not, cannot be discussed. "Moses" by Michelangelo cannot be discussed. Only admired. Or not. The admiration depends on the eye that looks at it. Its perfection doesn't depend on the eye that looks at it. Its perfection is non-determined. I doesn't depend on anything. It doesn't depend on beliefs, including one's religion. It is perfection in itself. In the same way, the perfection of Beethoven's piece doesn't depend on the ear that listens to it. It is absolute perfection in itself. Or, maybe more correctly, absolute perfection shines through it. Some do see it and admire it. Some don't, and question it. Should I remind the story of the elephant and the six blind men? Do I have to "demonstrate" the existence of the elephant?

[OneThrow]

Welcome back nicksnd. Of course you hadn't gone away you were just forming your two questions.:)

I'm not very good at debating these things, but from a quick read (and I find it very dangerous to quick read any post, it usually takes me 3 or 4 reads to really get what the post is actually saying), I would say you are wanting to debate how one forms an opinion and perfection.

By the way I'm not going to answer those questions but write a few observations that is more considering the ideas.

Opinions. Without doubt we form opinions, we weight some opinions more highly than others, for example a spur of the moment opinion can quickly be changed, can often be wrong. But long held opinions, opinions held for years carry more weight. We seek out opinions of those we respect.
Standards must come in some shape or form from those things we perceive to be facts, i.e. skill level. Mozart wrote 41 symphonies so that makes him prolific, to write one that people talk about must make him of at least some interest. For his music to be considered common currency i.e. a lot of people talk about it and have done for a long time means there is at least something there. Put yourself in Mozart's position, you have written 41 symphonies, they are played by all the best orchestras in the world they were written two hundred odd years ago doesn't that say something to you about how good you really are Mr Mozart?

Perfection. I see this as a bit harder to consider. Nicksnd talks about perfection as something undefined by opinion. Like it or not these guys earned it themselves, we as listeners with an opinion did nothing to help them achieve it. I hope that paraphrases the argument. I think a proper definition of perfection is in order. And I can't give it. I could say perfection in your opinion, but then that would actually cheapen perfection. I know for sure that whatever Mr Mozart did, he did it without my help. I know he achieved skill levels that I cannot achieve. But so far that is as far as I've got with perfection.

Opinions, standards and perfection are a whole area of discussion in themselves.

Just a few thoughts.

P.S. I've used the word "we" a lot of the time, it just means I am talking about myself. That's the way I talk, sorry.

[Counterpoint]

The way you have put your question, also considering your previous views expressed in this thread, you suggest that it is always the latter.

If you think my "always" is an abuse, let's consider one particular case. Here is one so-called "benchmark":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL0u9QXNvEg&amp;feature=related

To Clarify:

The "always" that you presented was of the form "one opinion is always true for every person". The statement "The music X is the best that a human being can achieve" can only be an opinion, because there exist people who disagree. That statement in itself is not an abuse. The abuse occurs when the opinion is followed with "Anyone who disagrees with this opinion is flawed."

Let's not confuse opinions with facts.

Question:
In the case you would agree that, arguably, some might consider that piece a "benchmark" -- do you think that "benchmark" comes from a vacuum, or do you think that "benchmark" is set by subjective popular opinion? Which of the two? In other words: Is that particular piece of music -- "absolute perfection" (as I call it), or is it just another piece of music, which happens to be an arbitrary "benchmark" set by some of its listeners (as you suggest that it's always the case)?

A "musical benchmark" only applies to listeners (or composers, or analysts...) who agree that a piece of music should be a benchmark. In other words, popular subjective opinion, and yes this is always the case.

A composer writes music. A listener has an opinion about the music. Listeners who have a favourable opinion about the music determine that it should be a benchmark. These are all facts, and therefore always the case.

The impossibility is that the music itself is "perfect". If music were "perfect" then it would communicate its intended message to all listeners, regardless of their "flawed perception".

Now tell me, does any of that constitute an abuse of "always"? Maybe I'm just daft and I'm not seeing it.

Incidentally, regarding the Beethoven Sonata "Pathetique"... in my opinion this is a benchmark (in other words I perceive it as music to be aspired to and it takes me to "another world" when I listen to it). I just don't expect anyone else to agree with my standards.

Out of curiosity, what would you (or others if you'd like to reply) say if I declared the following work (not by any composer mentioned so far) as a benchmark?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWMM8EmMZ-E


Question:
What do you think that lies behind that "yet another sonata" -- would you say it is something that may loosely be called: "great imagination"? Or would you say that it took a rather "small imagination" to write it? Or maybe something in between, like "mediocre imagination?" More simple, my question is: In terms of imagination, what lies behind that sonata, in your opinion?

Actually this interests me too but maybe in a different way... Nikolas, why do you see no point in writing another sonata, or a symphony? Do you just see the forms themselves as being too limiting or do you think that we've musically accomplished all that we can with them? (not attacking in any way here, I would just be interested in reading more about what you have to say about these forms)

Cheers,

- Matt

[nickysnd]

I would say you are wanting to debate how one forms an opinion and perfection.
No, I don't want to debate the psychological/social mechanics behind opinions. And no, I don't want to debate about perfection, that's impossible. Perfection can't be discussed, and that for many reasons, first we don't have the vocabulary to discuss it. Perfection can only be experienced.

I just wanted to point out that there are things beyond opinions, beliefs, and discussions -- so the relativity game is not paramount, as some people suggest. We can discuss style and elements of style. We can break down that Sonata into notes and discuss the notes, the chords, the articulations, fingering, and everything you want. Except one thing -- its absolute perfection. That is beyond discussion.

Also, to say that the listener adds anything to that music is delusional and misleading. The listeners and their grandmas may try to "see" as much as they can from its perfection, but that's about all they can do. And then, their opinions about it are completely irrelevant. That's why music, and I mean good music, can't be discussed. Only experienced.

From a musical analysis, however good, there are always things that escape, like beauty, meaning, and perfection -- which are things of the highest importance. Everybody can put one note after another and one note on top of another. That's just silly, anyone can do it, including anyone's grandma and her cat. Composing music, and I mean good music, is dealing in absolutes. It is trying to show otherworldly beauty that cannot be shown otherwise, it is trying to tell stories that cannot be told otherwise, it is trying reach perfection that cannot be reached otherwise. Some people say that "beauty is the the eye of the beholder," that there's "no communication beyond social conventions," and that there is "no perfection but only subjective judgments and opinions." Some people miss the forest for the trees. Some people talk about elements, like: pillar, rope, branch, fan, wall, pipe -- while missing the elephant.
http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html

[nickysnd]

If music were "perfect" then it would communicate its intended message to all listeners, regardless of their "flawed perception".
According to that "logic," if an elephant were an elephant, it would communicate its elephantness to everyone, including those six blind men. It didn't. Therefore, an elephant is not an elephant.

Truth is, perfection that would depend on opinions, that won't be perfection, obviously. The elephant doesn't depend on our (more or less) distorted perceptions of it. The elephant does exist independently from our perceptions of it. Same goes about perfection.

Perfection cannot be described, only experienced (spiritually experienced), and then affirmed. But to say that perfection doesn't exist, only because you never experienced it -- that is doubly sad.

Out of curiosity, what would you (or others if you'd like to reply) say if I declared the following work (not by any composer mentioned so far) as a benchmark?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWMM8EmMZ-E
If you declared that as a benchmark, I'd say only this: follow your bliss.

[nikolas]

I see returning to previous stuff.

Nickysnd, please quote the whole paragraph when you use it next time. I've asked you repeatedly and you keep doing the same thing!

Matt, reread the following quote and see if the meaning changes somewhat.

We are probably talking about something different. I can't say I find it greatly imaginative to create, yet another... sonata (for example, as hip hop was certainly a silly example and nothing else. I don't use examples as arguments), in the same tonality, with the same form. I'm not denying beauty, or amazingness (!) to any extend, but not sure if it takes an infinite deal of imagination to create Sonata No. 28 after having composed another 27 before that.

Now, nobody is taking away from the value of that sonata. I've asked again and again the definition of 'imagination' but dear young Nickysnd did not bother to give it. Just kept asking, assuming that my "superior musical height" was at play and permited me to see what other people don't see! :p

When you quote me, nickysnd, quote the full meaning. When you want to discuss something, do reply at least to the constant question of "what you mean by imagination"... Even at that very same quote that you slaughtered to suite your needs, there is the first phrase that says "We are probably talking about something different...".

______________________________________

Matt.

The misquoted phrase does not show exactly what I meant. I agree, that as quoted by Nickysnd, it shows my non interest in sonatas... (!). But funny thing is that I am composing right now a piece based on a sonata form! So much for anything, huh?

On a personal level, and nothing more, I use everything as 'tools'. Forms, tonality, phrases, etc. Of course I don't sit down and play with my tools until something comes out, but I do see them as a pallete which I can use anytime.

On a personal level, again, I find that composing a sonata in the veins of Mozart, or Beethoven, would be slightly outplaced in time and space, and in all honesty not worth; in my case of course. I wouldn't be able to compose anything better. So no reason for me to try. Unless a client asks it, right? This is different (Cause I have composed a 'classical' concerto like piece, which in fact is partly stolen from Beethoven! :D:D hahahahaha! (of course the term 'classical' also refers to aesthetics :))

On a personal level, once more, I try to come up with new things. As much as possible and as much good as possible. I doubt I've done anything really new, or anything amazingly good really. But I like to fool myself into toying with 'new' ideas, as much as possible.

That said, I find the idea of reusing old(er) material quite nice and quite new, if your filters are fresh. A sonata is sometimes perceived as something 'oldish', but John Cage managed to create something very fresh from that very same form:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VYsx5Di3bso
Sonata V ! (and I actually do like that piece. Very 'electronic' for such an organic medium as a piano.).

And Daft punk is really nice! Love the video, as well!
____________________________

Onethrow,

I also agree that there are some things which defy opinion really. On a personal level. There's many things that I find beyond my control of liking or disliking! Not every single piece, by every single composer, but I do see that I don't want to go into the trouble of trying to explain why I like... Mozart so much, or Beethoven, or Bach. I don't think I can come up with an argument, whereas I could possibly come up with a few words about other things. I would be able to explain maybe better, but Mozart, Beethoven and Bach seem to defy that logic. It just... works. Not unlike love really! I have an opinion of female beauty, but I have a wife. I can explain why I find... a top model beautiful (or not), but I won't give any explanation to why my wife... is my wife. It defies logic!

Or something like this anyways... :-/

Still, my wife is lacking imagination! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Counterpoint]

According to that "logic," if an elephant were an elephant, it would communicate its elephantness to everyone, including those six blind men. It didn't. Therefore, an elephant is not an elephant.

If an elephant were perfect, it would communicate its elephantness to everyone, including those six blind men. It didn't. Therefore an elephant is not perfect.

However, it is still an elephant.

If music were perfect, it would communicate its musicality to everyone, including those six deaf critics. It didn't. Therefore music is not perfect.

However, it is still music.

- Matt

[Counterpoint]

One more thing...

Some people miss the forest for the trees. Some people talk about elements, like: pillar, rope, branch, fan, wall, pipe -- while missing the elephant.

You forgot to mention that some people also think there is only one forest and only one elephant.

- Matt

[OneThrow]

Still, my wife is lacking imagination! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D


No.No.No.No.No!

You married her didn't you?:D:D:D (I know cheap shot.)

[nikolas]

LMAO!

Well.. she wasn't wearing her glasses when that happened... So... it explains a lot! :D:D:D:D

[nickysnd]

If an elephant were perfect, it would communicate its elephantness to everyone, including those six blind men. It didn't. Therefore an elephant is not perfect.

However, it is still an elephant.

If music were perfect, it would communicate its musicality to everyone, including those six deaf critics. It didn't. Therefore music is not perfect.

However, it is still music.

According to that logic, something doesn't exist unless it is either perceived through our imperfect senses, or implied by our imperfect mind. What you are saying is: perfection that doesn't overcome imperfection it's not perfection. That sounds logical. Only that you are using logic in a domain that falls outside logic. It's like trying to talk about free will by using mathematical signs.

Perfection cannot be perceived through imperfect senses. Perfection can only be spiritually experienced. The human spirit, being perfect, is able to experience the perfection of other spiritual things. Here you will probably say that there is no such thing as spirit, because it can be neither sensed, nor logically implied. To which I will respond: of course it can't, our imperfect senses and mind have access only to imperfect things. Senses and mind can't experience perfection. Our emotions don't tell us anything about perfection either. And that is because perfection is of spiritual nature. You seem to disregard completely the spiritual dimension of a human being.

And here we bumped into the existence of the soul, because spirituality is based on soul. Soul?? You will probably call that: illusion, belief, opinion. But the spiritual dimension doesn't use logic and semantics, it is dealing in absolutes. Which is something that you said it's disgusting. Is spirituality disgusting to you? Now you will ask me to define spirituality. Forget it. No words for it. Can't be discussed. Impasse. Now, I can understand things through the language of logic, like you do, I can perceive things through the senses, like you do, I can feel emotions, like you do. There is one fourth thing that I can do which you said you can't: to experience perfection. I won't go that far as to say that you lack the human spiritual dimension. But likely you lack the key to unlock the door to it. There are many keys for that door. The music of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, for example, are very good keys. Silly tunes like you posted won't do it. Of course, I know that you appreciate the music of those composers. And this is a true impasse for me: it beats me completely how come that, listening to it, you don't experience, at least from time to time, like I do, the perfection shining through that music.

I'll leave it at that.

Some people miss the forest for the trees. Some people talk about elements, like: pillar, rope, branch, fan, wall, pipe -- while missing the elephant.
http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html
One more thing...
You forgot to mention that some people also think there is only one forest and only one elephant.
I was not talking about one specific forest and one specific elephant, of course. Hence the term elephantness. I have however implied that there is only one elephantness. Elephantess is: the essential condition of being an elephant. Of course that I see, like you do, the differences between two elephants. But, in absolutes, those differences are irrelevant to elephantness. Of course there are many elephants, but there is only one elephantness. Similarly, I never implied that there is only one perfect piece of music, but the perfection that shines through different pieces of music, that perfection is only one. And that is not an abstraction. It is real.

Elephantness is the essence of what it takes to be an elephant. Of course, we can't experience elephantness. But we CAN experience perfection instead, by being what we humans are, which is: spiritual beings. We share with animals: senses, emotions, and intelligence (plus some derivatives). What sets us apart is these two things: free will and spirituality.

[V o n h ö g e n]

Wow! This thread has evolved into a fundamental discussion on "elephantness" in just a few days! :eek: I'd better stay tuned to this thread, I might learn something from it. :rolleyes:

I have included some food-for-thought for the philosophers among us (Nicky, Eric?), it may be a bit academical for the rest of us I'm afraid, but it's harmless nonetheless.

Cheers!

- Jerome Vonhögen

533


And if you thought this was hard, try the next one:


534

Do you have any clue? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[nickysnd]

In the first picture I'm not sure whether I'm missing the forest for the elephant or I'm mistaking the elephant for a tree. Could be both.

The animal in the second picture looks very much like a rabbird.

As for "philosophy and academia," it is true that Platon's Academia was the birthplace of philosophy, but today's academia is dead for wisdom lovers. While philosophy is looking up for absolute truths, academia looks down with contempt at such things as dealing in absolutes, while having fun with the relativity game of half-truths, opinions, political correctness, experiments, and other stuff like that. No trace of spirituality in academia. Philosophy is essentially spiritual.

[V o n h ö g e n]

(...) philosophy is looking up for absolute truths (...)
Philosophy is essentially spiritual.

Really? I was under the impression that Western philosophy had learned to ignore that will-o'-the-wisp ages ago. :confused:

No trace of spirituality in academia.

Right, and let's keep it that way, shall we? :) I don't think anyone would like to see us return to the days that geniuses like Adam Smith had as much authority within the scientific community as the average alchemist across the street!

Now let's try to get this thread back on topic, gentlemen. Let me know what you think of the following thought:

Some people claim that having a recognizable style is a special quality that only the best composers in the world have. I was wondering, if this were true, wouldn't this mean that these composers are in fact repeating themselves?

- Jerome Vonhögen


.

[OneThrow]

I define perfection as of being the highest degree of quality.

Adding a spiritual dimension.

Beethoven believed in a spiritual dimension to his work. According to the book by Marion M. Scott Beethoven had on his desk this creed.

"I am that what is.
I am all that is, that was, and that shall be.
No mortal man hath lifted my veil.
He is alone by Himself, and to Him alone do all things owe their being."

Scott says of a transcription by J. A. Stumpff of Beethoven's words, "the ideas are unmistakably Beethoven’s, though the words have taken on a certain grandiloquence in Stumpff's transcription."

Here are the words;

"When at eventide I contemplate in wonderment the firmament and the host of luminous bodies which we call worlds and suns, eternally revolving within its boundaries, my sprit soars beyond these stars many millions of miles away towards the fountain whence all created work springs and whence all new creation must still flow.... What is to reach the heart must come from above: if it does not come thence, it will be nothing but notes-body without spirit ... The spirit must rise up from the earth.... Only by hard, persistent labour through such powers as are bestowed on a man can the work of art be made worthy of the Creator and Preserver of everlasting nature!"

I must nail my colours to the mast and say I can't see the spiritual dimension in Beethoven's work. I have tried, and at some point there may be a revelation but not yet. My loss as you might say.

Counterpoint

The music you posted I would say. To be fair it didn't do anything for me, it was repetitive, it was hypnotic, it was fun, I've never heard it before. I would ask what paramaters you would use to say its a benchmark. And I would ask whether its benchmark status is likely to be temporary.

Hoketus

The first picture is completely out of scale, I think the drawer has given far to much weight to the elephant.

The second picture is clearly incomplete because there are no trees, without a common reference it is impossible to compare both pictures.

I know nothing about philosphy and I understand nothing about philosophy, therefore I must be a philosopher.:D

EDIT


Some people claim that having a recognizable style is a special quality that only the best composers in the world have. I was wondering, if this were true, wouldn't this mean that these composers are in fact repeating themselves?

- Jerome Vonhögen


.

Yes. But it is repetition of best choices and best practices. It doesn't exclude variety or limit the imagination of the composer concerned.

[JaapVisser]

It’s sticking head above parapet time.

Style. We have it whether we like it or not. It comes from the choices we make.

But it is more than that. Does it come from an unwritten set of rules that we follow, consciously or unconsciously?

Language has a set of rules that allows us to converse. It allows unlimited freedom for self-expression and it allows unlimited styles of expression.

So. When someone is doing that killer track or an emotion defining cue, what is it that makes it undeniably their style and no one else’s?

Or to put it another way.
Do you think composers should be a – “freedom of imagination composer” - where chaos reigns supreme, or an – “I follow the rules composer” - where clients set the rules.

Or should the composer be none of the above?

Disclaimer
I accept no responsibility for the spelling of any of the above. It has all been thoroughly spell checked. ;)

Sorry I could not read the whole thread... but :)

I think you are confusing a few things. The rules are created afterwards. Harmony already excisted before Rameau put the theory on paper. You have composers who search for the extremes and you have composers who stick with the theory as it is presented. During a period these two groups fight a battle and the results of the outcome (mostly the path somewhere in between) is stylistic period analysed, organised, identified and put into books by musicologists afterwards (for example the romantic period, neo-classical, serialism)

You need all groups to maintain the evolution of music. If we would all stick with Beethoven, we would not have the EWQL products. If we would all follow the avantgardists we would not have it also.

A composer makes up his own choises based on social background, education (not perse music) and the connection with his present culture (involved, not involved etc) to what group he will belong.

[OneThrow]

Sorry I could not read the whole thread... but :)

I think you are confusing a few things. The rules are created afterwards.

I wouldn't read the whole thread if I were you. It got a bit side tracked in places.

Yeah I'm confused at the best of times, but I think I posted earlier that percieved rules of style are created after the fact. If I didn't I should have done.


You have composers who search for the extremes and you have composers who stick with the theory as it is presented. During a period these two groups fight a battle and the results of the outcome (mostly the path somewhere in between) is stylistic period analysed, organised, identified and put into books by musicologists afterwards (for example the romantic period, neo-classical, serialism)


Interesting point about the battle between extremes and orthodoxy forging style. Never thought of that.

Me thinks I shall have to chew that over for a bit.

[V o n h ö g e n]

You have composers who search for the extremes and you have composers who stick with the theory as it is presented. During a period these two groups fight a battle and the results of the outcome (mostly the path somewhere in between) is stylistic period analysed, organised, identified and put into books by musicologists afterwards (for example the romantic period, neo-classical, serialism)


What makes you think that such stylistic 'battles' automatically get settled after a while? Why would such 'battles' even have an outcome at all? I don't believe the Brahms-defenders and the Wagner-followers ever settled their 'battle', nor did they ever intend to.

I think one of the problems in any discussion on musical style and traditions is that many people tend to believe in some kind of inherent historical progress in music, without admitting it explicitly.

- Jerome Vonhögen

[JaapVisser]

It is not settled between the composers themself. From a certain point musicologist analyse it and sort of put boundries around it and call it period "X". The composers are too busy with doing the stuff they have to do and they mostly don't put names on periods. That last thing is only a hype that is going since the 1980's with self proclaimed styles such as New Complexity, new spirituality etc. With the rise of communication and the speed improvement of communication we tend to name things quicker as we think it is "important". The job for todays musicologist is to stand above that, make good analyses of musical structures and re-organise it.

[V o n h ö g e n]

I would love to believe that, but I'm afraid history proves otherwise. The history of Western music is full of politics, rivalry, neglect, personal battles, ruined reputations, and anomalies.

I think you are too kind about the composers' attitude in general. They are human beings just like you and me, and can therefore be as evil and dishonest as anyone.

- Jerome Vonhögen

[JaapVisser]

I am not sure if I am following you. True what you say about the composers attitudes, but that is not what I mean or what is the issue. They are just like we are today and fighting, doing politics, licking, begging, fighting etc, but that are just small individual skirmishes.

The balance of all those individual skirmishes is made afterwards and is often defined as style A or movement B.

I know the history of Western Music very well and also true what you say about it, but that is exactly what is defining style from a certain period. It is a fierce battle on all fronts between "revolutionairy" and "traditional" movements and nothing is left unused, including politcs, murder (Gesualdo), alliances and even marriages (Cosima Wagner).

[Counterpoint]

You seem to disregard completely the spiritual dimension of a human being.

Nope, I didn't say anything about that, in fact.

Soul?? You will probably call that: illusion, belief, opinion. But the spiritual dimension doesn't use logic and semantics, it is dealing in absolutes. Which is something that you said it's disgusting. Is spirituality disgusting to you?

Yes, it is spiritually disgusting to me.

Now you will ask me to define spirituality. Forget it. No words for it. Can't be discussed.

It would appear you already defined it as "absolute perfection", with which I disagree.

I won't go that far as to say that you lack the human spiritual dimension. But likely you lack the key to unlock the door to it. There are many keys for that door. The music of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, for example, are very good keys. Silly tunes like you posted won't do it. Of course, I know that you appreciate the music of those composers. And this is a true impasse for me: it beats me completely how come that, listening to it, you don't experience, at least from time to time, like I do, the perfection shining through that music.

I would say that you lack the understanding that there are many doors of varying shape and size (but all large enough for anyone to pass through), many keys, and that some keys work in more than one door, and that there is no "perfect door" or even "perfect combination of doors". For to argue that is to deny the others. Which door(s) to choose? Well, that is the subjective part, even for the soul.

The fact that I perceive that "silly tune" as perfection should be proof enough that "absolute perfection" is impossible. Only "personal perfection" can exist.

I was not talking about one specific forest and one specific elephant, of course. Hence the term elephantness. I have however implied that there is only one elephantness. Elephantess is: the essential condition of being an elephant. Of course that I see, like you do, the differences between two elephants. But, in absolutes, those differences are irrelevant to elephantness. Of course there are many elephants, but there is only one elephantness. Similarly, I never implied that there is only one perfect piece of music, but the perfection that shines through different pieces of music, that perfection is only one. And that is not an abstraction. It is real.

So one elephant says "I have a better understanding of elephantness than you do." while another says "No you don't, I do!". Next thing you know, the Holy War of Elephantness has begun and all the elephants lose.

- Matt

[Counterpoint]

I define perfection as of being the highest degree of quality.

Adding a spiritual dimension.

I would define perfection as "without flaw" and that highest degree of quality is a subjective opinion.

This thought does not dismiss that personal perfection or even shared perfection can exist, it just leaves room for the others who disagree.


The music you posted I would say. To be fair it didn't do anything for me, it was repetitive, it was hypnotic, it was fun, I've never heard it before. I would ask what paramaters you would use to say its a benchmark.

Well, in the analytical sense I could look at the rhythms and the harmonies and determine that they appear to work very well together (perfectly, in my opinion).

I would say that it is a "minimalist" style, but it's not entirely repetitive. The composers explore various combinations of those sounds and tinker with how they all fit together (in other words: a development of the ideas).

In the spiritual sense... it just resonates with me (sympathetic vibration, like how striking one A440 tuning fork will cause ananother A440 tuning fork to vibrate even though it was not struck). I can't help but to be drawn in by it and feel some kind of connection with the composers.

Note that I'm only talking about the music by itself so far. If you watched the video and observed the choreography, perhaps you noticed that each group of people represented one of the instruments. At first they are each concerned with doing their own thing, but as it progresses and devlops, their roles become more sympathetic with one another and we start to see them moving more in cooperation as a greater whole (the circular motion being metaphorical for a vinyl record).

And I would ask whether its benchmark status is likely to be temporary.

I can only say that I have accepted it as a benchmark for over ten years, and that it is likely to continue to be a benchmark as long as I continue to appreciate it. I can't speak on the behalf of others though, so I don't have a complete answer to this question.

- Matt

[nickysnd]

On style. Personal style is everything music is about. Personal style rules. Good music? What's good for you is crap for me, dude, and we are equals. Beethoven's music, superior? Ha! According to who, exactly? Spiritual? That's disgusting. Perfection? That's talking in absolutes baby, makes me puke. When it comes to music, all we have is opinions and personal tastes. Beethoven and Snoop Doggy Dogg are equals as composers, and their only importance is the one bestowed by their listeners. They're just two composers with different personal styles.

"You don't love me, baby, you just love my doggystyle."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_TcszezOVE&amp;feature=related

[Counterpoint]

Good music? What's good for you is crap for me, dude, and we are equals.

Only equals in terms of what our opinions are worth.

Beethoven's music, superior? Ha! According to who, exactly?

According to me, you and anyone else who has the capacity to appreciate Beethoven.

Spiritual? That's disgusting.

Only disgusting when one person starts telling everyone else their spirit is worth less just because they experience the universe differently.

Perfection? That's talking in absolutes baby, makes me puke.

Perfection is in the eye of the beholder. To claim otherwise is fanaticism.

When it comes to music, all we have is opinions and personal tastes.

Yup, and that's a good thing, especially when many can share the same opinions and personal tastes.

Beethoven and Snoop Doggy Dogg are equals as composers, and their only importance is the one bestowed by their listeners.

Hmm, actually do we even know if Snoop Dogg is a composer? Maybe he is just the lyricist?

They're just two composers with different personal styles.

Yes and if you like one of them better, just embrace that and don't concern yourself with the other. Live and let live.

"You don't love me, baby, you just love my doggystyle."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_TcszezOVE&amp;feature=related

Not my cup of tea. I prefer the Beethoven and the Daft Punk. :)

- Matt

[nickysnd]

Perfection is in the eye of the beholder. To claim otherwise is fanaticism.
That is plain wrong. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven have shown through their music that perfection is absolute. Bach was a "fanatic." Mozart was a "fanatic." Beethoven was a "fanatic." You are not a fanatic. Rejoice! That will save you from the troubles those individuals have gone through. That will also save you from seeing the absolute beauty that was open to them.

Perfection can't depend on what Joe or Jim might see. What is in the imperfect eye of the beholder, that is far from perfection. Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it exists in itself, independent of anything else. Perfection exists in absolute independence from human imperfections, and it opens itself only to the human spirit. Some people have been able to transcend their imperfections. The quest for perfection, and their spiritual side, allowed Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven to achieve perfection. Your quest to drag that music down and make it equal to some daft punks, that only says something about yourself and nothing about the music of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. Don't fool yourself -- your ears, emotions, intellectual capacities, and opinions, those things don't add anything to the music of those composers. Being non-improvable is in the very nature of perfection.

I prefer the Beethoven and the Daft Punk. :)
What makes you tolerant and open to both is precisely what closes your spirit to musical perfection. What makes me intolerant and closed to daft punks is precisely what opens my spirit to musical perfection. I am closed to something that I know to be inferior. You are closed to something that you refuse to see.

Those six blind men would call "a fanatic" anyone who will say that he has seen an elephant.

[V o n h ö g e n]

I am not sure if I am following you. (...)
The balance of all those individual skirmishes is made afterwards and is often defined as style A or movement B.

What I meant to say is that the history of (Western) music doesn't necessarily move towards a 'balance', a 'settlement', or an equilibrium of some kind. There is no hidden cybernetic or holistic principle involved in the history of music, and any assumption of progress in musical history, whether implicit or not, should be considered as highly questionable, or perhaps even as a matter of faith.

To avoid repeating myself, I will now quote myself. :p

one of the problems in any discussion on musical style and traditions is that many people tend to believe in some kind of inherent historical progress in music, without admitting it explicitly.

Allow me to elaborate a bit more.

It is not the task of musicologists or historians to explain the course of musical history in terms of logical or balancing principles. Such approach would only be reasonable in isolated, predictable/recurrent systems, which the history of Western music clearly isn't. That's why I mentioned those unpredictable, nasty habits (or inclinations of you like) of people.

The history of mankind is inherently unpredictable (read Karl Popper, if you're not convinced), and so is the history of music. At best, musicologists may observe contingent trends and may be able to relate these trends to certain facts, events or influences. However, reducing such trends to stylistic categories is of limited scientific value. It's just a way of handling and archiving vast amounts of data without losing the overview, if you'd ask me. In my view, it's the anomalies and singularities that (should) make the heart of the musicologist go faster, not the stereotypes!

- Jerome Vonhögen

[nickysnd]

In my view, it's the anomalies and singularities that (should) make the heart of the musicologist go faster, not the stereotypes!
Musicologists are always talking in stereotypes, because they don't have a heart. That's also why they don't understand the music, which is something far beyond graphic signs and hear-able sounds. The only "musicologist" who had a heart was Albert Schweitzer, who said things like:
"Joy, sorrow, tears, lamentation, laughter — to all these music gives voice, but in such a way that we are transported from the world of unrest to a world of peace, and see reality in a new way, as if we were sitting by a mountain lake and contemplating hills and woods and clouds in the tranquil and fathomless water."

[OneThrow]

On style. Personal style is everything music is about. Personal style rules. Good music? What's good for you is crap for me, dude, and we are equals. Beethoven's music, superior? Ha! According to who, exactly? Spiritual? That's disgusting. Perfection? That's talking in absolutes baby, makes me puke. When it comes to music, all we have is opinions and personal tastes. Beethoven and Snoop Doggy Dogg are equals as composers, and their only importance is the one bestowed by their listeners. They're just two composers with different personal styles.

"You don't love me, baby, you just love my doggystyle."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_TcszezOVE&amp;feature=related

:D I sense a certain amount of irony in this post!

Counterpoint

I did watch the video of the piece that you posted, but I have to confess not too closely. Its great that you have picked out positive qualities that I should have. For that reason I put it on my "of interest" list. I will listen to it with different ears if there is a next time. The thing that interested me most was that you had admired it for 10 years.

You also define perfection as being "without flaw". But I put at the top of my list "masterpiece" and I have the view that masterpieces can exist with flaws and I see "masterpiece" as "beyond perfection". Oh dear I wonder if I should have said that. I'll go and take a cold shower.

I'm not going to explain it all because I can't. I wonder if everyone has a different idea of perfection?

[Counterpoint]

Your quest to drag that music down and make it equal to some daft punks, that only says something about yourself and nothing about the music of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven.

Please explain how anything I have said is a "quest" to lower the value of their music.

If I said I think that A, B and C are perfect while you think that C is not, this somehow reflects an attempt by me to "lessen" A and B?

What makes you tolerant and open to both is precisely what closes your spirit to musical perfection. What makes me intolerant and closed to daft punks is precisely what opens my spirit to musical perfection.

And yet none of what you presume to know about my spirit changes my appreciation for Daft Punk.

Those six blind men would call "a fanatic" anyone who will say that he has seen an elephant.

I think each of them would call the other 5 "fanatics" for believing devoutly in a different elephant when they each believe that they "know" what a true elephant looks like. The fanaticism is whatever makes them stop looking after they have only felt one small part of the whole elephant.

I did watch the video of the piece that you posted, but I have to confess not too closely. Its great that you have picked out positive qualities that I should have. For that reason I put it on my "of interest" list. I will listen to it with different ears if there is a next time. The thing that interested me most was that you had admired it for 10 years.

They are interesting artists... not afraid to challenge their listeners (their third album is very difficult to listen to in a single sitting). Their second album is probably the "easiest" to listen to as the tracks are generally less "edgy". What's interesting is that they took the entire album and made an animated film from it called "Interstella 5555" where the film follows the track-order of the album. No dialog, just the music.

You also define perfection as being "without flaw". But I put at the top of my list "masterpiece" and I have the view that masterpieces can exist with flaws and I see "masterpiece" as "beyond perfection". Oh dear I wonder if I should have said that. I'll go and take a cold shower.

That's an interesting point... maybe in some cases it is the flaws in the music that can make us love it.

I'm not going to explain it all because I can't. I wonder if everyone has a different idea of perfection?

That's what I wonder (and tend to believe)... that everyone perceives "perfection" differently.

- Matt

[nickysnd]

You also define perfection as being "without flaw". But I put at the top of my list "masterpiece" and I have the view that masterpieces can exist with flaws and I see "masterpiece" as "beyond perfection".
I think we must stop considering "monsters" like Bach and Co. and talk more mundane and less flaming things, and more on the topic actually. Which is: style and composition. For example, let's take two observations of two guys who never cared for composing music:

“The higher up you go, the more mistakes you are allowed. Right at the top, if you make enough of them, it's considered to be your style.”
-- Fred Astaire

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."
-- Soren Kierkegaard

What the first guy was saying is this: in the beginning, when you are small and nobody gives a damn about you, you have to hide your mistakes and play by the rules, if you are to succeed. Then, after gaining your clients' respect, you may loosen the focus on correctness and start to add some of your mistakes to the mainstream style. Then, the higher you climb up the ladder, you may show more an more of your style, which is full of mistakes of course, but by now people have learned to respect you so that they will mistake your mistakes for "innovative elements of a new style." What they will miss is that you're just another hack that has learned the way through the business. Another thing that they will miss is: what your style really means to you, for they will make all sorts of wrong assumptions and will emphasize all sorts of irrelevant aspects of it, to justify the "smartness" of their decision to like you.

The second quote relates to the topic in this sense: styles, including personal styles, can only be established backwards (as someone correctly observed somewhere in this thread), which means it is irrelevant, when not plainly hidden, to the composer who uses it. With rare exceptions, beginners only care for mainstream styles, so that they can climb up the ladder. When they're up there they have two options: to keep doing what works and just take advantage of conventions, or to try to express themselves through their mistakes, which may be financially risky, but morally (and sometimes even artistically) rewarding. Most composers first embraced the backwards established style, but after a certain point they have put forward their own mistakes that will afterwards be called, looking backwards: their personal style.

Style says nothing about music. It's just a topic that can be discussed, nothing more. Music can't be discussed, and that for at least this reason: however good it is, however silly it is, however bad it is, talking about music ads nothing to it and subtracts nothing from it. So my suggestion is: let's keep style separate from music.

[OneThrow]

:D:D Enjoyed that enormously.

Let the music do the talking. I'll second that.

Except this is a forum for people who want to talk about music in some aspect or another.

So how would you separate style and composition from music, because I can't.

Your two quotes says everything about style, and so as a conversation starter it knocks me out. I can't reply except to say the same thing.

I do agree its pointless talking about the great composers because we are talking ourselves round in circles.

Style:

"Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn." -- Gore Vidal

EDIT

Discuss. :D

[nickysnd]

So how would you separate style and composition from music, because I can't.
Oh yes you can. What do you have to lose? You may make some mistakes, some typos, raise a few reactions, stuff like that. No harm will be done, whatever you will say. The world will go round and round, regardless. :D

"Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn." -- Gore Vidal

EDIT

Discuss. :D
Are you saying that you can't comment on that quote? Not even one paragraph? Come on! You're just teasing, right? Here are only a few suggestions: What means that "who you are" is "style"? Does it mean that whatever stuff you come up with is good to put forward for everyone to listen? Is "what you want to say" -- the content, or the manner you express that content? Also, what is that you're "not giving a damn" about? - is that: "who you are"? or rather, "what you want to say"? Or maybe, both? What do you think that guy "wanted to say"?;)

Now YOU discuss. :p

[Counterpoint]

“The higher up you go, the more mistakes you are allowed. Right at the top, if you make enough of them, it's considered to be your style.”
-- Fred Astaire

A pertinent quote and I agree with Nickysnd's interpretation of it.

Consider something that OneThrow said earlier:

Like I said some people do their best work when they are young.;)

This observation is interesting in how it pertains to Fred's quote. If the less experienced composers are sticking with what is accepted, and then later adding more "mistakes" that give the impression that they have developed a style, it would appear that some "mistakes" are more successful than others.

Another observation is how often those "mistakes" will form a split in music. The composers who come after may either adopt, ignore or outright reject the "mistakes", even glorifying or vilifying the composer who made those "mistakes".

Take Arnold Shoenberg for example. His early compositions were more traditional while his later ones (where he developed the 12-tone style) caused a fracture in the music community. Some rejected this, some embraced it, while others believed it was not music at all.

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."
-- Soren Kierkegaard

I'm not sure if I agree with the first half of that quote. Some individuals demonstrate a strong sense of "forwards-understanding" as if they somehow already know what is going to happen. I would concede that these people might just be very lucky. But yes, we seem to be limited (at least our physical bodies) to moving from one state to the next in a single direction, which could be described as "forwards".

I music, I suppose it does relate back to the first quote in that most composers do start out by adopting some accepted (backwards-understanding) style, and that as they progress they might explore ideas that have not yet been accepted.

I think there is some deliberateness to change though. A composer might decide to start using some non-standard instrument, or use a different harmonic technique, or invent a new structure for a musical work. This suggests that some composers might very well be aware of the style of their music and that they are planning ahead to some extent.

"Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn." -- Gore Vidal

This quote seems to relate to the present and the future. "Knowing who you are" means you have an understanding of yourself in the present moment, without reference to the past. "What you want to say" refers to that next-state forwards direction known as the future.

In music, this quote suggests that a composer who has a style knows what musical options are available to them and has an idea they wish to express. The "not giving a damn" part means they are creating the music for the sake of expressing the idea and not for the sake of pleasing others.

That's how I'd interpret it in the context of music.

- Matt

[OneThrow]

Oh yes you can. What do you have to lose? You may make some mistakes, some typos, raise a few reactions, stuff like that. No harm will be done, whatever you will say. The world will go round and round, regardless. :D


Are you saying that you can't comment on that quote? Not even one paragraph? Come on! You're just teasing, right? Here are only a few suggestions: What means that "who you are" is "style"? Does it mean that whatever stuff you come up with is good to put forward for everyone to listen? Is "what you want to say" -- the content, or the manner you express that content? Also, what is that you're "not giving a damn" about? - is that: "who you are"? or rather, "what you want to say"? Or maybe, both? What do you think that guy "wanted to say"?;)

Now YOU discuss. :p

Thank you nickysnd. Oh dear what have I got into now. You know this is just like being at school. I was once given zero for a piece of English, a story that was read out in class as an example of what not to do. I'm not very good at this sort of thing.

But here goes.

"Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn." -- Gore Vidal
The quote is about confidence.
Know what it is you are about, be clear about the contents of your own mind and not be afraid to express it.
It also suggests to me that you shouldn't be put off by what other people think. It also suggests you should be true to yourself.
You should have the confidence to deliver what you can do. Be yourself. So style is about being yourself.

There we are. Nicky I'm sure you have the eloquence to express it in a much better way than I. A score of 1 for effort would be much appreciated.

[PaulR]

Yes- Gore Vidal always makes me laugh. I read Cats Craddle (or something like that years ago). Great sense of humour and can sum a person up from 50 paces.

When recently asked by a Channel 4 HACK!!!! whether the incumbent President would be better than Bush he replied witheringly that 'you would be better than Bush' (meaning the Channel 4 HACK!!)

He once said - For me to succeed, someone must fail.

Sorry- carry on.


:D

[Counterpoint]

The quote is about confidence.

Ok I suppose I could have just used the word "confidence" and spared you the wordy description about past, present and future, but I couldn't think of that word at the time. :D

- Matt

[nickysnd]

"Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn." -- Gore Vidal
The quote is about confidence.
Know what it is you are about, be clear about the contents of your own mind and not be afraid to express it.
It also suggests to me that you shouldn't be put off by what other people think. It also suggests you should be true to yourself.
You should have the confidence to deliver what you can do. Be yourself. So style is about being yourself.
I take it that style is: focusing on who you are and what you want to say, while not giving a damn about who others are and what they might want to say.

But why someone's style should be thought more "stylish" that another's? Or maybe it isn't? Maybe the style of everybody and of their grandmas are of equal importance. Now the question is: who DOESN'T have a style? Another one would be: DOES anyone have a style?

Let me explain:

If style means "not to care about other styles," then there would be no style but one's own, because no one will observe any other style but their own. And one's own style won't exist outside one's own eyes. Because, the moment one will consider another person's style, that will dismiss the existence of their own style, which depends on total insensitivity to anyone else's style. Also, if no one cares about somebody else's style, and everybody have unknown styles of equal non-importance (since everybody disregard each other styles), then what does it mean to have a style? And what's the use of a style, if it exists only for oneself? Besides being un-observable for someone else, is it also useless, perhaps? In these circumstances, can we even talk about "style?" Can we be sure that "style" does exist? Or it's just another nonsense, like one's "subjective perfection"? What exactly do you mean by this: "style"?

[OneThrow]

EDIT

For a start my computer crashed while I was finishing this posting and I lost most of it. (Poor excuse.) The other thing is I am pressed for time. (Another cop out.)

But this is where I am at the moment.

(What remains of my original posting plus a bit extra.)

"Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn." -- Gore Vidal

I take it I didn’t even get the 1!

Okay Style.

I don’t understand why someone’s style should be thought of as more important than someone else’s. I don’t see it as a game. I don’t see it as an ego trip. Being stylish is pandering to fashion, people do it even in music, or should I say especially in music. I see style as the way we do things. You have it like it or not because it is the way you express yourself. You may copy other people and if you learn from that you inherit from them. If you form your own solutions you’ve not needed another crutch. We don’t live in a vacuum.

I see style like a picture of a person. You don’t know what that person is really like until you talk to them, do things with them. Style is like the gathered sayings of someone, in that they are not talking directly to you. You do not know what they are like until you deal directly with them. So style would be like an outward shell.

What that statement is not saying is know your place, that would imply deference, otherwise why would he say "and not give a damn"?


If style means "not to care about other styles," then there would be no style but one's own, because no one will observe any other style but their own. And one's own style won't exist outside one's own eyes. Because, the moment one will consider another person's style, that will dismiss the existence of their own style, which depends on total insensitivity to anyone else's style. Also, if no one cares about somebody else's style, and everybody have unknown styles of equal non-importance (since everybody disregard each other styles), then what does it mean to have a style?

I'm a bit lost here. If you have to take note of everyone else's style, how can you express yourself? If you have to use everybody else’s words how do you convey your own ideas and meaning?


And what's the use of a style, if it exists only for oneself? Besides being un-observable for someone else, is it also useless, perhaps?

I think we have it whether we like it or not. It is the way we express ourselves. What its use is, I don't know.


In these circumstances, can we even talk about "style?" Can we be sure that "style" does exist? Or it's just another nonsense, like one's "subjective perfection"?

:D "Subjctive perfection". That's good.
I'm sinking further and further here.


What exactly do you mean by this: "style"?

At this point I don't have the faintest idea.:)

I feel like I've just been thrown to the lions.

I known what I think, but I find it very difficult to express myself in a way that other people understand. That's why I turned to music. It does at least allow me to express myself in a way that words can't.

I've played the game. Its like ritual humilation for me. I hope everyone has enjoyed the spectacle.

Style. Who cares. For me this thread is closed.

Like I said I'm pressed for time.:) (Sorry about the last bit.)

[Counterpoint]

:D "Subjctive perfection". That's good.
I'm sinking further and further here.

Sorry, I think that one was one of mine so I feel compelled to clarify:

"Subjective perfection" just means that what is perfect for one person might different from what another person thinks is perfect.

- Matt

[Erik Wietzel]

For those who love Daft Punk, HERE (http://palmsout.blogspot.com/2007/02/sample-wednesday-27-daft-punk.html) an interesting link. I was amazed, puzzled, whatever...And much much disapointed. Well, of course I know about samples ; but when a whole melody, the one that sustains the track, is a sample - and i don't remember it's noted down somewhere on the album...T'was like discovering one of my fave Portsihead gimmick came directly from a "Mission: impossible" episode. You can try this you tube link as well :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJPdVVOmbz4&feature=related

[Counterpoint]

For those who love Daft Punk, HERE (http://palmsout.blogspot.com/2007/02/sample-wednesday-27-daft-punk.html) an interesting link. I was amazed, puzzled, whatever...And much much disapointed. Well, of course I know about samples ; but when a whole melody, the one that sustains the track, is a sample - and i don't remember it's noted down somewhere on the album...T'was like discovering one of my fave Portsihead gimmick came directly from a "Mission: impossible" episode. You can try this you tube link as well :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJPdVVOmbz4&feature=related

Interesting link... but not news. All the samples that they used are credited in the album notes. ("Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger" even credits E. Birdsong as a co-writer suggesting he might have had even more involvement with that track)

Also, some of the matches from that blog are wrong. "Around the World" and Goldsmith's "The Rec Room" are not very similar at all (at least I'm not hearing it) and certainly nothing was sampled from the latter. Same with "Veridis Quo" and "Supernature".. this time I can see the similarity but there's no sampling going on there and they're not at all the same melodically... "Voyager" and "Get Down Saturday Night"... there are structural similarities but again, nothing sampled and the harmonic structure is quite different.

Oddly, I couldn't get any of the MP3 links on that blog to work so I had to look elsewhere to make comparisons.

I'll admit I was also a little bit disappointed with how much was sampled for tracks like "Harder, Better, Stronger, Faster", but it's not like they were trying to hide anything or steal undue credit. Also, even if the main loop is from "Cola Bottle Baby" there's a lot more to that track than just the main loop.

Cheers,

- Matt

[Erik Wietzel]

Ok, sorry then. Haven't re-check Discovery sleeve since it's my sister's.

I was disapointed especially by "Harder..." "Robot Rock" and Digital Love. What I prefer in those songs, or what make them "sound" and resonate in me, is what was already done. So in the end those are mere remixes to me. Why not, after all.But it's a different game.

I checked this site more than a year ago, maybe the links don't work no more.

[Counterpoint]

I was disapointed especially by "Harder..." "Robot Rock" and Digital Love. What I prefer in those songs, or what make them "sound" and resonate in me, is what was already done. So in the end those are mere remixes to me. Why not, after all.But it's a different game.

Yeh I tend to agree with you about that. I've got mixed feelings about what they did with those tracks you mentioned. Some of the samples they use are just as an "effect" while the ones you mention are the foundation (or main hook) of earlier tunes. What they do with them is still creative, but definitely more like a remix.

- Matt