# Composing for a living vs. composing for art



## SaintDufus (Sep 25, 2014)

One thing I love about V. I. Control is the incredibly diverse array of composers here: from rank amateur to seasoned professional, and pretty much every degree in-between.

Many of the "amateurs" (and this seems an unjust word to describe some of the great talents here, but I use it to distinguish them from the "pros") would love to "cross over" into the realm of getting paid for doing what they love.

But it seems that often, when one starts making money doing what they love, the joy of the art fades, and pure creativity may become subsumed in a sort of mercantile mentality--as though the composer has "sold" or exchanged the purity of their art form for cash.

It's a trade-off that has existed as long as art and money have co-existed; and in a world dominated by money (as ours is), there's almost no getting around it. Therefore it's hard to fault composers who "sell out" by doing things like commercial jingles, etc.

But on the other hand, some fantastic works of art are created by paid composers (look at many of today's film scores); so maybe the one (commercial gain) doesn't necessarily have to cancel out the other (pure art).

What are the thoughts of composers here, on the subject of art vs. commerce? Do some amateurs here fear that earning money composing might blunt the purity of their art? Do some pros miss the joy of composing just for the fun and beauty of it?


----------



## José Herring (Sep 25, 2014)

You have to realize that it's not as cut and dry as you make it seem. It's not art vs. commerce, but rather art used as commerce. Either one can be pretty artistic, just that music for commercial purposes has some sort of function to fulfill. Fulfilling that function and making it meaningful is hard to do. Only few have been able to achieve it. Most don't even attempt to.

I think Bernard Herrmann said it best as it relates to writing for movies. He said there's music that fits the picture, and that's good, and there's music that fits the picture that also is good music, and that's really something special. But, if the music doesn't fit the picture, no matter how good the music may be, it's nothing (I paraphrase liberally).

So the only real difference that I see between scoring to picture and writing pure music is that first and foremost, the music needs to work with the picture. That limits your language often and sometimes dictates what style you write in. But, you should always strive to make it good music within the limits of the assignment and always strive to push those limits.

I think that's one reason a guy like HZ is so successful. He never wrote anything but commercial music, got to know it well and stretches it to the point through his particular brilliance to something that is really unique.

Personally, I'm trying to strike and optimum balance. It hasn't been easy. I didn't grow up with the idea that people did music for commercial reasons and it's been hard to sort of bend my thinking. I either over shoot it and do it too simple or I go over the top and end up writing double bitonal fugues or something. 

Out of survival I've noticed that the too simple cue doesn't get thrown out where the bitonal fugues gets stamped out before it even gets past the demo stage.

On the other hand there's nothing more liberating than writing music without a care in the world as to whether or not it works to something else. I kind of do my best work that way. So I say, do both. If you can take the beating, doing media work is highly fun work. I mean, beats working a day job and writing music a night which unfortunately is the fate of almost every concert composer I know.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 25, 2014)

I go to avant garde concerts with some frequency, and those composers express curiosity about what media composers do. They are palpably conscious of the money.

A good bit of their stuff is pretty cool and a lot more dense than a lot of the rubbish done for media, but they almost never get a full orchestra.

Except John Adams!

Not sure about justice and commerce and art.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Sep 25, 2014)

SaintDufus @ 25/9/2014 said:


> Do some pros miss the joy of composing just for the fun and beauty of it?



I try to inject some fun and beauty into my commercial endeavours. :wink:


----------



## bbunker (Sep 25, 2014)

I think that for hundreds of years, composers have managed to work around the fact that the 'fun and beauty' got tied up in the need for a weekly cantata, or a roster of wealthy noble piano students needing pieces dedicated to them, or operas that needed full houses.

I mean, this was written basically as the 'applied portion' of a job application:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Usq-DJ2rKo

Things don't get much more 'composing for a living' than turning in a job application, but I'd say that there's more than a touch of beauty that's made it in there, as well.


----------



## mathis (Sep 26, 2014)

Well, I'm composing for the art and for the living at the same time.


----------



## Miska (Sep 26, 2014)

The grass is always greener on the other side.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Sep 26, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri Sep 26 said:


> SaintDufus @ 25/9/2014 said:
> 
> 
> > Do some pros miss the joy of composing just for the fun and beauty of it?
> ...



I'll sign up to that


----------



## SaintDufus (Sep 29, 2014)

josejherring @ Thu Sep 25 said:


> You have to realize that it's not as cut and dry as you make it seem. It's not art vs. commerce, but rather art used as commerce. Either one can be pretty artistic, just that music for commercial purposes has some sort of function to fulfill. Fulfilling that function and making it meaningful is hard to do. Only few have been able to achieve it. Most don't even attempt to.
> 
> I think Bernard Herrmann said it best as it relates to writing for movies. He said there's music that fits the picture, and that's good, and there's music that fits the picture that also is good music, and that's really something special.



Excellent points Jose, thanks for sharing this.


----------



## SaintDufus (Sep 29, 2014)

bbunker @ Thu Sep 25 said:


> I mean, this was written basically as the 'applied portion' of a job application:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Usq-DJ2rKo
> 
> Things don't get much more 'composing for a living' than turning in a job application, but I'd say that there's more than a touch of beauty that's made it in there, as well.



Interesting point...and a good reminder that art can flourish in the context of making a living.


----------



## SaintDufus (Sep 29, 2014)

mathis @ Fri Sep 26 said:


> Well, I'm composing for the art and for the living at the same time.



That's interesting, Mathis...what exactly do you do?

Can you post a link to some of your work?


----------



## SaintDufus (Sep 29, 2014)

Miska @ Fri Sep 26 said:


> The grass is always greener on the other side.


I can't confirm or deny this, as I've only been on one side of the fence so far. 

That said: I have to say it's a beautiful shade of green on the side of pure art. 

The art, the joy, and the beauty of composing, for me, trumps whatever monetary gain might be obtained by means of it, on principle...but I concede that this idealistic view is a luxury in our pragmatic world.


----------



## AC986 (Sep 30, 2014)

What I hate about grass is you always have to cut it.


----------



## mathis (Sep 30, 2014)

SaintDufus @ Tue Sep 30 said:


> mathis @ Fri Sep 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm composing for the art and for the living at the same time.
> ...



http://mathis-nitschke.com/wp/

I'm currently working on my 2nd opera. It's a reasonable paid commission with complete artistic freedom. It is still possible. But seldom, of course.


----------



## mathis (Sep 30, 2014)

Also in the more commercial commissions I mostly don't have the impression I have to trade off my artistic thinking. It's actually the other way round. If I hadn't something like a personal artistic voice I wouldn't have gotten anywhere.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 30, 2014)

I still believe that commercial music is more about craft than art and I am fine with that. Even people I revere, like John Williams or The Beatles, I think of more as superb craftsmen than artists as oppose to someone like Ravel, who I think of as an artist.

But that doesn't make the music of JW and The Beatles less terrific nor does it mean that they don't sometimes produce art, it's just not their primary goal. It is a different gig.


----------



## gbar (Sep 30, 2014)

For the record, it's not just music that "business" can turn into work.

Warren Buffett famously says "Do something you love, and you'll never work a day in your life". I think that's fair, but it's easy to say if what you love involves generating a lot of money because what you love involves managing a portfolio of securities  And even that hasn't always been lovely for him.

My professional background is in computers. I used to love programming. I still do a little of it for the joy of doing it sometimes (mostly minor stuff these days), but in my earlier, more stubborn over-achiever days, I was on the bleeding edge, and even did a stint in research where I was one of the few non-P.h.D.s, and I quickly figured out that just keeping up the pace required was burning me out, I was not likely to see many raises due to my academic standing, and... research projects could suddenly be deemed "non-strategic", and they;d be scrapped and years of work had to be abandoned and new learning curves assaulted.

In the end, I opted for higher pay, fewer hours, and less creativity because having a life was at least possible if I left research.

Such is life.


----------



## clarkus (Sep 30, 2014)

My observation is that unless you have a trust fund, there is quite a challenge in balancing the creation of music that is NOT commercial with any other music. This dichotomy is getting worse, not better, as evidenced by diminishing funding (in America, at least) for the arts. I've written 3 commissioned operas. What would have been the 4th started with the usual advance to me & the librettist, but did not reach the stage due to insufficient funds raised by the (quite reputable) producer. I don't think this is anomalous. I see a lot of artists beating their heads against the wall right now, meaning they (and I) are trying quite hard to find a career path that works. 

I just met the music director from the recent film about James Brown. He has done a lot of films in that capacity & he had what seemed to me a quite realistic view of what's involved in success in the film world as a composer: fantastic persistence and luck.

If you love music & you can't seem to stop making it, then you put it out there in every way & form you can think of, and some of it will find a home. 

Personally, I teach music as well as make it & there's a living there. It's not always ideal, but it is sometimes quite satisfying & I have, actually, a generous amount of time to write music. I was just doing it this morning. 

The Beatles, George Gershwin, John Williams, Hans Zimmer et al have what I would call a sort of "undeniable" talent. It's hard to imagine them NOT achieving recognition. If you, or we (or I) recognize in ourselves something unique, the fundamental challenge may be to draw that out, and not get too distracted by marketing & so on, so that what can make success for us (our unique talent) can do its job.

There's a lot mitigating against that in today's world. You have to get a bit ruthless about where you put your time.


----------



## mathis (Sep 30, 2014)

clarkus @ Tue Sep 30 said:


> the fundamental challenge may be to draw that out, and not get too distracted by marketing & so on, so that what can make success for us (our unique talent) can do its job.



Yes, that's exactly what I discover lately. I have to spend so much time in networking and marketing and such that ultimately my source material dries out. I really have to make a plan for the next year to cover new creative grounds to get things going, doing experimental research that is.

Not sure if that is good English...


----------



## clarkus (Sep 30, 2014)

Good enough!


----------



## SaintDufus (Oct 2, 2014)

mathis @ Tue Sep 30 said:


> SaintDufus @ Tue Sep 30 said:
> 
> 
> > mathis @ Fri Sep 26 said:
> ...



Mathis, my compliments on your excellent work. In particular I am enjoying your film score for "The Possibility of an Island."


----------



## SaintDufus (Oct 2, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Sep 30 said:


> I still believe that commercial music is more about craft than art and I am fine with that. Even people I revere, like John Williams or The Beatles, I think of more as superb craftsmen than artists as oppose to someone like Ravel, who I think of as an artist.
> 
> But that doesn't make the music of JW and The Beatles less terrific nor does it mean that they don't sometimes produce art, it's just not their primary goal. It is a different gig.



EastWest Lurker, what exactly do you feel it is that marks Ravel as an artist, but not John Williams or the Beatles?


----------



## SaintDufus (Oct 2, 2014)

clarkus @ Tue Sep 30 said:


> If you love music & you can't seem to stop making it, then you put it out there in every way & form you can think of, and some of it will find a home.
> 
> If you, or we (or I) recognize in ourselves something unique, the fundamental challenge may be to draw that out, and not get too distracted by marketing & so on, so that what can make success for us (our unique talent) can do its job.



Well said, clarkus. I agree that our focus should be on creating.

As Goethe said: "Create, artist! Do not talk!"

(Though I do find this particular "talk" quite interesting...)


----------



## mathis (Oct 2, 2014)

Thank you, SaintDufus.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Oct 2, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Sep 30 said:


> I still believe that commercial music is more about craft than art and I am fine with that. Even people I revere, like John Williams or The Beatles, I think of more as superb craftsmen than artists as oppose to someone like Ravel, who I think of as an artist.
> 
> But that doesn't make the music of JW and The Beatles less terrific nor does it mean that they don't sometimes produce art, it's just not their primary goal. It is a different gig.



Yap!

I think most great film composers recognize this, and that's part of the reason they are great film composers.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 2, 2014)

I think it's quite difficult to define the difference between "art" and "craft," because there is so much of craft IN art.

Some might define art as: a level of mastery of the craft (painting, poetry, music -- whatever) that is so extreme that the consciousness of the audience OF that craft disappears.

Some might define the difference at least in part as one of intention -- that the craftsman's state of mind is focused not just on the beauty of a painting or a combination of notes intended to please an audience, but on "something higher" -- religion, perhaps, or man-and-the-universe, or a philosophical something-or-other.

Since the 1800s, there has been increased emphasis on art (by contrast with decoration or entertainment) as a deep, highly personal expression of the artist. Some argue that only art created by the artist for himself / herself -- and NOT for an audience -- can be really "art."

I don't find any of these individually very satisfying. I think there has been lots of painting, music, sculpture and so on done on commission for a specific patron on a specific subject that is just rubbish and some that rises to what many people over a long time call "art." 

One component of the definition might be the passage of time. Shakespeare, for quite some time, was forgotten and considered contrived, crabbed, and of very little interest, but today he's (nearly) universally recognised as a genius.

So, one component of art might be that a century has passed and it's still prized, not merely as an historical artifact ("representative of the time"), and by that definition, it's a bit early even for Ravel, but certainly for John Williams or The Beatles.

Yoked as it is to movies that naturally will grow stale with time, I am not sure JW will in 100 years be held in the regard of, say, Ravel. Pity, given his unbelievable mastery of technique and the delight he's brought so many.


----------



## clarkus (Oct 2, 2014)

Well said, John. All good points.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Oct 2, 2014)

It's an endless debate, I don't think anybody has ever been able to convince someone else to think otherwise on this subject in the history of the universe. It's like believing in God, you do or you don't have faith. In my opinion, something like "The Art of Fugue" by Bach, has never been matched in any way or form, and I don't need to give a scientific explanation to prove that, it's just something I believe in, and I'm not alone. Not everyone agrees to that though, so our beliefs our different, but my point is, let's stop trying to find proof and endless explanations to justify one side or the other.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 2, 2014)

The art of fugue is not a tough one -- it's art, to me, as is Beethoven's 3d symphony. And one or two other pieces by those guys (!).

Is it art when you encounter a really fine sauce at a restaurant, or a beautiful and tasty dessert with unexpected ingredients? Is photography art? Is a collage?

I find all these questions quite interesting, even if there are endless debates.

Even originality, so prized today, has not always been very important to people evaluating art.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 2, 2014)

SaintDufus @ Thu Oct 02 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Sep 30 said:
> 
> 
> > I still believe that commercial music is more about craft than art and I am fine with that. Even people I revere, like John Williams or The Beatles, I think of more as superb craftsmen than artists as oppose to someone like Ravel, who I think of as an artist.
> ...



Intent; depth; originality;

Artists by intention are not prioritizing making money, although they need to make some to survive obviously. JW and The Beatles may stir some emotions but the level is simply not as deep; both masterfully added their own touch to already well plowed music while Ravel was ground breaking.

JW makes no bones about the fact that while he knows he does good work he doesn't put himself in that league and John Lennon disparaged much of what The Beatles did as either commercial crap, early on, and later over-blown. I think he was too critical of The Beatles great work, but till, it is not art the way Ravel is art, even though I love it to death.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 2, 2014)

I hear you -- I agree Ravel was an artist. 

But I am not too ready to count on "ground breaking" as a sufficient criterion for greatness. I don't think Bach was especially ground breaking, more the apotheosis of his craft at a time when that very craft was kind of old hat.

John Cage, for example, broke a lot of ground and from a rhetorical perspective was and remains provocative. However, a good bit of the work that movement generated leaves me very cold and, I suspect, will not be long remembered.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 2, 2014)

JohnG @ Thu Oct 02 said:


> I hear you -- I agree Ravel was an artist.
> 
> But I am not too ready to count on "ground breaking" as a sufficient criterion for greatness. I don't think Bach was especially ground breaking, more the apotheosis of his craft at a time when that very craft was kind of old hat.
> 
> John Cage, for example, broke a lot of ground and from a rhetorical perspective was and remains provocative. However, a good bit of the work that movement generated leaves me very cold and, I suspect, will not be long remembered.



I didn't list it as the _only_ factor, just one of them. That said, Bach is an exception. Let's review those generally acknowledged as the greatest artists among composers: Mozart? Ground breaking. Beethoven? Ground breaking. Wagner? Ground breaking. Debussy? Ground breaking.. Stravinsky? Ground breaking. Schoenberg? Ground breaking.. Varese? Ground breaking.

Jazz? Armstrong? Ground breaking.. Ellington? Ground breaking. Miles Davis? Ground breaking. 

It is so ironic, I am a guy whose favorite music is probably The Beatles and Burt Bacharach. But unlike many nowadays, indeed probably most, I do not buy that because one likes something that makes it great. History and those best qualified to judge by virtue of study and accomplishment it make that judgement.

Here is where I start to get called an "elitist", as if that is a dirty word.


----------



## muk (Oct 3, 2014)

Another factor that constitutes art is in my opinion that an artwork can be explained in an indefinite number of ways. For true work of art there's always a new way to interpret it (and I don't only mean a musical interpretation, but maybe even more so analyses that try to explain it). I think that correlates with Jay's point about complexity/depth.


----------



## Saxer (Oct 3, 2014)

composing for a living IS the art!


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 3, 2014)

mathis @ Tue Sep 30 said:


> SaintDufus @ Tue Sep 30 said:
> 
> 
> > mathis @ Fri Sep 26 said:
> ...



Good for you, Mathis! That's terrific. I hope to follow in your shoes one day.


----------



## murrthecat (Oct 3, 2014)

Hello guys,

I bring this question to the discussion.

Don't you also feel or see that when you are paid well you write better music? 

Or does it not happen to you what happened to Bach with his Cantatas or the 18th Opera composer - or other examples in history - that when you have a stricter schedule and you need to pick up a certain 'rhythm' in the process, you are more effective (writing more and better music)?

Of course, bad and good examples exist, historically and nowadays.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 3, 2014)

Those are interesting points -- more money, tighter schedule makes better art?

It's ironic that artists complain about deadlines but then you see something like the score for King Kong which, while perhaps not Great Art, still displays some of James Newton Howard's best work. I heard 168 minutes of music -- five weeks.

Even with a lot of help, that's pretty nutty.


----------



## gsilbers (Oct 3, 2014)

i wonder how the culture differes between composers in LA and outside LA. 

in LA imo, making m usic/film etc its another gig and the "art" part is not realy that present. maybe its because we are already inmmerse in it or is it because its just work at a point. the "Art" always brings to mind a salvador dali looking person with lots of tattos doing "Artist" things but here composers as well as anyone part in the biz looks and acts like everyone else, white suburbian type of person who has "another gig" which could be orchestrating a few cues for a latest mega release to scoring episodic cartoons.. and so on. 
the "art" whatever real defintion might be, could be found in silverlake area and venice were there is more of a crowd doing avant gard type of things outside a commerical endeviour ..i think... my perception, then again im struggling to the find the real definition of "Art" in this thread.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Oct 3, 2014)

It's all free will. Don't label or care about your writing being any of those 2 sides. Time will decide... The context in which you're writing something shouldn't get to you. Reward present or not (there actually always is one) just write and commit to making each piece the best you've ever written, knowing it probably won't be, like all the big guys do... Plus the love you put into your work is truly reflected in your audience's ears... (An artist is because he simply writes, but always know what you want to say...)


----------



## Guy Bacos (Oct 3, 2014)

But anyway, good writing is good writing and has nothing to do with what category it's in.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 3, 2014)

AlexandreSafi @ 3rd October 2014 said:


> It's all free will. Don't label or care about your writing being any of those 2 sides. Time will decide...



I'm not sure I agree with that. I believe that the really good writers, who are nevertheless writing for money, have more than just talent and craft, but an intense desire to raise the bar beyond what's good enough for the client.

I don't think that just going about one's business as a media composer will produce anything approaching art, without that extra aspiration. It won't just happen accidentally.

Lots of composers whom we revere wrote for money -- Stravinsky, Mozart, etc. so that's not in and of itself bad.

And lots of composers who intensely sought to produce transcendent results produced a fair amount of dull complexity. Personally, I think writing for money is better than the "Who Cares If You Listen" attitude of some 20th century academic composers (see Milton Babbitt's interview / essay http://www.danjacobwallace.com/2010/06/who-cares-if-you-listen-milton-babbitts-famous-article/ (http://www.danjacobwallace.com/2010/06/ ... s-article/) )

But if you don't reach for something beyond "good enough" I don't think it's very frequently the case that you will just stumble over it.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 3, 2014)

Guy Bacos @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> But anyway, good writing is good writing and has nothing to do with what category it's in.




Hmmmm, not sure. If someone writes a really great 2:30 three chord rock song, like The Trogg's "Wild Thing" or Van Morrison's "Gloria", do we _really_ believe that it is art on the level of the Beethoven 9th?

Doesn't pass the common sense test for me.


----------



## gsilbers (Oct 3, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Fri Oct 03 said:
> 
> 
> > But anyway, good writing is good writing and has nothing to do with what category it's in.
> ...



then what would be _YOUR _defenition of "Art"?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 3, 2014)

Something created primarily for the love of creation that reflects (in most cases) a unique personal vision combined with depth and the craft to convey all that.


----------



## gsilbers (Oct 3, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> Something created primarily for the love of creation that reflects (in most cases) a unique personal vision combined with depth and the craft to convey all that.



but woudlnt in context, wild thing and other 4 chord songs, be also considered "Art" under your definition?

at what point does composiitons/songs cross the line to be under the definition of "Art"?


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Oct 3, 2014)

I guess what I wanted to say is that you either have the free will to decide whether a specific context in which you're creating should affect the love you put or don't put into something, or you either have the choice to love every little thing that you are and that you do no matter what... In any case, i think a true artist always works focused "in the now", with the best intentions always and does the best that he simply can only do at that moment in time he does it, because he loves it not only for himself, but he might actually also deeply care each time that he shares something, a piece, with the world. He wants it to always mean something, he could actually make it his primary mission, so he has that constant deep-rooted insecurity as a wise companion, all while ironically never being too concerned about calling his work art or himself an artist... I think it's clear the only driving force can only be: Love (in all forms and never losing sight of that...)

Art, for me, is simply that love, honesty, sincerity felt through one's work and probably lots of other qualities I don't want to be made aware of because in some cases, i think we'd simply be better off without that word, wouldn't we?!... :D


----------



## SaintDufus (Oct 3, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Oct 02 said:


> JohnG @ Thu Oct 02 said:
> 
> 
> > I hear you -- I agree Ravel was an artist.
> ...



The irony of your not calling the Beatles "artists" is that they WERE ground-breaking.

They ushered in a completely new kind of music. They totally re-shaped rock and roll.

If anyone in rock music was ground-breaking, it was the Beatles--yet you exclude them from your definition of artist, of which "ground-breaking" is the main criterion.

I don't call you an elitist, but I do think your definition of "artist" is too narrow. (P.S. The Beatles are my favorite rock band as well.)


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Oct 3, 2014)

JohnG @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that. I believe that the really good writers, who are nevertheless writing for money, have more than just talent and craft, but an intense desire to raise the bar beyond what's good enough for the client.


The Sistene Chapel is proof of this one. People are still trying to figure out the meaning of those paintings to this day!


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Oct 3, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> Hmmmm, not sure. If someone writes a really great 2:30 three chord rock song, like The Trogg's "Wild Thing" or Van Morrison's "Gloria", do we _really_ believe that it is art on the level of the Beethoven 9th?


No! But, damn... those songs sure say a lot in 2:30.

Tom Petty does this really well, too. Certainly not Beethoven's 9th, but I appreciate the economy of a song that cuts to my heart with as few chords and words as possible. There's definitely some art in there  

Is it 'great'? I don't know... Effective? I think it is.

Great discussion! (goes back to lurking)


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Oct 4, 2014)

marclawsonmusic @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> The Sistene Chapel is proof of this one. People are still trying to figure out the meaning of those paintings to this day!


Wrong analogy... I meant DaVinci's The Last Supper. I blame the whiskey.


----------



## clarkus (Oct 4, 2014)

I find myself agreeing with Jay Asher (and how often does that happen?). The fellow who submitted the Trogg's Wild Thing to see if it rose to the level of art may have to admit it falls down based on Jay's criterion that it's a "unique personal vision."

Don't misunderstand, Troggs-lovers. I am all over a good rock song. 

But the Troggs (unless there's a B-side that I'm not aware of that will blow my mind) did not have the musical equipment to do anything unusual. Composers, by the time they know something about their craft, can actually make choices and say "I'm going to use this material, this orchestration, this structure, and create this kind of piece." Most rock bands, even the great ones, are working with a more limited box of tricks.

As someone pointed out on a related thread not long ago, it's fun when art and commerce happen to overlap. I say this as someone who spends time in Europe & I can tell you I miss it when I'm there: America is still the king of making new, cool music where the marketplace bumps up against creativity. Here's an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T14ux2k7rk0


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 4, 2014)

SaintDufus @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu Oct 02 said:
> 
> 
> > JohnG @ Thu Oct 02 said:
> ...



NOBODY loves The Beatles more than me, but the only thing they did musically that was ground breaking was to add elements from other genres of music that were long established. And even that they did with a lot of help from George Martin. Yes, they were exceptionally creative and I would agree a few tracks rise to the level of art possibly (Tomorrow Never Knows and A Day In The Life for example).

But to say they created art on a level of "Daphnis Et Chloe" ? Not in my narrow view 

Now you can argue thatt hey were ground breaking in recording techniques but once again it wax with a lot of help from Geoff Emerick et al.


----------



## clarkus (Oct 4, 2014)

I have to gently disagree with Jay (now we're getting on more familiar ground!)

If you write songs, you wind up taking off your hat to the songwriters of the 60's who added the occasional bar of 2/4 and 3/4, who stretched and shrank the length of the vocal phrase to make it less predictable, and who modulated with courage all over the damn place. Joni Mitchell did this, and the Beatles did this, and we actually have gone backward as far as what's considered a bold, risky, fresh-sounding pop tune.

Of course, they were cobbling together existing musical tropes:The Beatles were masterful musical mimics & that was part of what made them fun. But there was a willingness to experiment & depart from familiar formulas, and it wasn't just via the production & the producer. They knew what a cliche was & they often avoided it. 

I would add that to the criteria for what is "artful," if not "art:" an unwillingness to make something that sounds utterly derivative.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 4, 2014)

And Burt Bacharach did that even more than those people.

But nonetheless, that existed in other genres 50-60 years before.

I started as a songwriter and had some success and I certainly respect the craft of songwriting but I just don't think it is "art" on the same level as great concert hall writing.

I love your distinction between "art" and "artful" however. The Beatles were definitely artful.


----------



## clarkus (Oct 4, 2014)

Well, where did that brilliant little essay go that I was writing? Damn! Never open another widow when you're on a roll.

Stand by my statement that the Beatles (and Joni Mitchell, since I brought her up) had a "willingness to experiment & depart from familiar formulas" that expanded songwriting.

Virgil Thompson, various American composers "did all this 50 years before" ... kind of. To take it from the concert hall & it put it in a pop song is a pretty unexpected twist in musical history. Got to give those lads some credit. I wish somebody would release something that was as dazzling & tuneful as Abbey Road. 

To get at the topic of this thread, it's awfully nice they were able to do that AND make a tidy living. We should all be so fortunate.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Oct 4, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Fri Oct 03 said:
> 
> 
> > But anyway, good writing is good writing and has nothing to do with what category it's in.
> ...




Did I say anything about "ART", in my previous post? Since this is an endless debate, it's better to each have his/her own beliefs on what is "ART", and simply agree that good writing is good writing. Whether it's art or a fart, that stays within your personal beliefs.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 4, 2014)

That works for me, Guy.


----------



## clarkus (Oct 4, 2014)

Well, this fellow Murrthecat, who started this post, put "art" in the title, for better or worse. So I think we're within our rights. Are we under arrest?


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 4, 2014)

I don't compose for a living but I will do the odd music job usually for friends or if it's not too demanding. 

I recently worked on a friend's film but had to bow out because my day job had become exponentially busier as our company was acquired by a bigger one and integration was a doozy. Also, and frankly I was really surprised at this, he kept telling me not to follow the temp but everytime I strayed away a smidge from it, he didn't like the cue. I did 15 versions for 1 cue at the beginning of the film and finally had it- I mean, if I had all day to just work on his score, no problem but I was pulling 14 hr days at my day job and wasn't making any headway on the project so I finally just said "sorry, I cannot do this" (plus I was doing for free so I really had little to no motivation to continue to be frustrated).

Shortly after that, the guy who's radio show I composed a theme for asked me if I could do a fanfare variation of my theme. I woke up early one morning, sketched it out on Notion for iPad- transfered it to the bigger PC version. Then imported it into DP8 and changed the instruments to CineBRass/Hollywood Brass and the guy totally loved it. Took me a few days from the production end but only a half hour to compose in Notion from start to finish. 

Generally though, I just enjoy composing for myself and working on concert pieces. I find music is a great stress reliever when done just for fun. If it's being done for work, well, it does have its own rewards but I'm not going to lie and say it's not stressful. Obviously those who do it for a living see it a different way or else handle that kind of stress better than I. All the power to them.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 4, 2014)

Actually, Guy, knowing how seriously you take your own craft, I'm a little surprised that you are comfortable saying, in effect, "art is whatever you decide it is."

Plenty of people have adopted that point of view, to be sure, but I have never bought it, just as I've never liked the idea that the composer who makes the most money or gets the most commissions or is the most popular in his day is the best.

It doesn't have to be rancorous argument, of course, but there is quite a difference between, say, Rothko and Rembrandt; or Cage and Arvo Part or Mozart.

For me, as a would-be composer, these distinctions are dramatic and inform what I do and probably even what I hear / see when I experience others' art.

Watched Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet last night. Stunning. And a long way from one of Cage's "happenings" or what have you.

I know you know all this and am mildly surprised at your reaction to this discussion.


----------



## SaintDufus (Oct 10, 2014)

clarkus @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> Well, this fellow Murrthecat, who started this post, put "art" in the title, for better or worse. So I think we're within our rights. Are we under arrest?



Actually, it wasn't Murrthecat who started the thread--his post just happens to be at the top of page two.

This is indeed a discussion of art--and as someone else has noted, each person will have a different opinion of what art is.

East West Lurker's opinion seems to be that the work of any musician whose style borrows from previously existing styles cannot truly be called art.

With respect to my fellow Beatles lover, I find it hard to accept such a narrow definition of art. One might just as well say that John Steinbeck wasn't an artist, because all the words he used to write _The Grapes of Wrath_ could be found in previously-written books.

Or that Van Gogh's work wasn't art, because despite his radical departure from previous styles, he nevertheless incorporated several stylistic elements of his predecessors.

Or to bring it back into the musical realm: that Beethoven wasn't an artist, because he built (and improved) on what Mozart had done (Mozart, in turn, not being entitled to the name "artist" either, for the same reason; etc.).

If you say "Exactly: those guys _weren't_ real artists," I think you might run the risk of looking a trifle foolish.... :roll:

But like I said: everyone has their own definition. I respect yours, even if I don't understand it.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 11, 2014)

SaintDufus @ Fri Oct 10 said:


> clarkus @ Sat Oct 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, this fellow Murrthecat, who started this post, put "art" in the title, for better or worse. So I think we're within our rights. Are we under arrest?
> ...



That is NOT my position.My position is that the difference between primarily artistic attempt versus composing to serve another purpose, like picture and clients, USUALLY includes a desire to break new ground.


----------



## murrthecat (Oct 11, 2014)

AlexandreSafi @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> I guess what I wanted to say is that you either have the free will to decide whether a specific context in which you're creating should affect the love you put or don't put into something, or you either have the choice to love every little thing that you are and that you do no matter what... In any case, i think a true artist always works focused "in the now", with the best intentions always and does the best that he simply can only do at that moment in time he does it, because he loves it not only for himself, but he might actually also deeply care each time that he shares something, a piece, with the world. He wants it to always mean something, he could actually make it his primary mission, so he has that constant deep-rooted insecurity as a wise companion, all while ironically never being too concerned about calling his work art or himself an artist... I think it's clear the only driving force can only be: Love (in all forms and never losing sight of that...)
> 
> Art, for me, is simply that love, honesty, sincerity felt through one's work and probably lots of other qualities I don't want to be made aware of because in some cases, i think we'd simply be better off without that word, wouldn't we?!... :D



I strongly AGREE with your definition, Alexander. Besides, I would add that art - as the ethimology should tell us - is also a matter of a lot of craft, technique, hard work, getting hands dirty!


----------



## Guy Bacos (Oct 11, 2014)

JohnG @ Sat Oct 04 said:


> Actually, Guy, knowing how seriously you take your own craft, I'm a little surprised that you are comfortable saying, in effect, "art is whatever you decide it is."



No, what I was saying was making a distinction between good writing and "art". So a lot of music I enjoy very much is "good writing", Beatles for example as Jay have said 5000 times  But I agree, Beatles is good writing, but not "art", at least to me. Gershwin IS art, for me. It's easier to agree on what is "good writing" than what is "art". It doesn't look like there can be a consensus on what is "art", way, way too many factors come in line and it becomes an endless discussion with nobody convincing anyone of anything. To be extreme, didn't Stockhausen see 9/11 as one of the greatest masterpiece ever, according to his idiotic views on "art"? I have my personal views on what "art" is but I wouldn't want to debate that anymore.


----------



## clarkus (Oct 11, 2014)

Sorry I got you wrong, Jay. I'd agree. But we might draft our own candidates as to who is groundbreaking. The Beatles (and Brian Epstein) created a stew of influences that was unique in its own way. I continue to be baffled that pop music has actually devolved. The bandwidth of the Beatles influence would not - it seems to me - prosper or be welcome today, when genre seems so very stratified. 

Several people here (including me) are wishing the topic would mutate just a bit. Definitions aren't so interesting. The topic of the post, though ....

"Composing for a living vs. composing for art"

.... has promise. 

I do like the observation that when you are trying to please a client you are on a very different path.

I've struggled this year a bit with the way I need to ignore my own inner ear as to what sounds good at times in order to give others what they seem to want. Composers, if they are good, by my lights, have good taste. We often work for people who don't.


----------



## dinerdog (Oct 11, 2014)

I think "artist's" are the LAST people that should even bother discussing what is and isn't art. What you think/like/call art is just in your DNA. The discussions are usually trying to validate one opinion or another which is cray cray!


----------



## JohnG (Oct 11, 2014)

thanks for your thoughts, Guy.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 11, 2014)

dinerdog @ 11th October 2014 said:


> I think "artist's" are the LAST people that should even bother discussing what is and isn't art. What you think/like/call art is just in your DNA. The discussions are usually trying to validate one opinion or another which is cray cray!



Whether or not they _should_ talk about it, they often have. 

T.S. Eliot, Beethoven, Shelley, Chagal, Picasso -- just to name a few I know about -- talked and or wrote about their approaches, in some cases what art is and isn't, in some cases literary criticism, their phases and new approaches to art, the place of art and the artist in society and so on.

I think the idea that art just "comes out" more or less accidentally from a well-schooled but gifted person, while popular in movies, is oversimplification. Beethoven revised and revised his pieces. He studied with other masters. He copied out others' scores. I also believe, based on the bits of letters I've read, that he was quite conscious of trying to produce something transcendent (though he didn't use that word as far as I know). Stravinsky talked about art.

If one defines art as more or less anything (a rusted brake shoe, a fork, a blade of grass on a plate, a white-on white series of squares -- whatever), then that would change the discussion a bit.

But leaving aside that school of thought for the moment, for me, great art is rich with meanings so that it can be experienced by many people with many different, but still valid, interpretations. Moreover, to be really great art, it continues to deliver to audiences over long periods of time, long after the immediate political or social or religious issues of the day have lost their immediacy. 

Shakespeare's sonnets are often about love, but they also are about duty, ancestry, ordinary vexations of life, literary commentary, unrequited longing -- the list goes on and on. Ditto Homer's Iliad. It has been read in many ways over thousands of years and retains its complexity and multiple validities. I heard Beethoven's first symphony played last night and it excited, once again, a great variety of emotional, intellectual, even philosophical responses.

Personally, I doubt that such productions are just happy accidents. I think their composers / authors etc. are very self-consciously reaching for something greater than mere craft or temporarily pleasing an audience or patron. I doubt it's "just in your DNA," but a combination of intuition, intellectual decisions, self-discipline, knowledge, practice and a conscious effort to make something higher than the ordinary, and I think there is ample evidence that many artists were very conscious and explicit in seeking that objective.


----------



## clarkus (Oct 11, 2014)

I like that JohnG. Well said.

Though it may be controversial in this forum & controversial always, I've gravitated to a much more inclusive view of what we're doing, which is shaping sound. This may or may not mean melody. It may mean borrowed materials, recordings of natural sound-sources, electronics, and so on. 

Though John Cage is on the informal list of most reviled composers hereabouts, Cage was influential in getting us to where we are now, which is (it seems to, and self-evidently) more inclusive. 

Steven Price's score to "Gravity," which is sound design as much as music, would have been considered very odd and amusical in the 60's and 70's. 

The trend has been toward inclusivity, and I think that's overall made for more imaginative and evocative work. Whenever I hear someone say "That's bullshit," or "Whatever it is, it's not ____ (the blank might be "jazz" or "real music") I wonder what's going on that people are so territorial, that they need to defend some imagined turf.

Time (in the sense of a century or so) gives us perspective. It's hard to believe that Satie was once considered really out there, hardly worthy of notice by the standard-bearers at the Paris Conservatoire. Gershwin, who's been mentioned, raised indignation when he wrote concert music, as he was also the composer of musicals and popular songs. It's fortunate that he didn't recognize or adhere to those categories.

There's a lot of delineation of territory in the arts. You'd think artists (or composers, if you prefer to just think of yourself that way) would be more interested than most people in doing away with categories and inviting everyone to just drink in the rich world of sound.


----------



## dinerdog (Oct 11, 2014)

I should add to my post a little bit. I think a discussion of art "among friends" would be a fun, lively discussion (and often is), but (clarkus) you are correct, in specifying the forum aspect. The internet is huge collection of people who mostly in real life wouldn't be friends. I think that's partly the reason the many, many discussion here (the internet in general) are sometimes helpful, but often contentious and stupid. I will not debate this. /oo\


----------



## JohnG (Oct 11, 2014)

clarkus @ 11th October 2014 said:


> There's a lot of delineation of territory in the arts & I'm not sure why, as artists, you'd think, would be more interested than most people in doing away with categories and inviting everyone to just drink in the rich world of sound.



You're right, clarkus. There is a lot of delineation of territory.

It's interesting how many manifestos of what art actually is have been made over time. One fun one is The Why Cheap Art Manifesto:

http://www.aisling.net/bus/cheapart.htm


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Oct 11, 2014)

JohnG @ Sat Oct 11 said:


> Personally, I doubt that such productions are just happy accidents. I think their composers / authors etc. are very self-consciously reaching for something greater than mere craft or temporarily pleasing an audience or patron. I doubt it's "just in your DNA," but a combination of intuition, intellectual decisions, self-discipline, knowledge, practice and a conscious effort to make something higher than the ordinary, and I think there is ample evidence that many artists were very conscious and explicit in seeking that objective.



Bravo JohnG! I'm glad to see i'm not the only one who thinks precisely that.


----------



## SaintDufus (Oct 15, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Oct 11 said:


> SaintDufus @ Fri Oct 10 said:
> 
> 
> > clarkus @ Sat Oct 04 said:
> ...



In that case please pardon the misunderstanding.


----------



## SaintDufus (Oct 15, 2014)

clarkus @ Sat Oct 11 said:


> Several people here (including me) are wishing the topic would mutate just a bit. Definitions aren't so interesting. The topic of the post, though ....
> 
> "Composing for a living vs. composing for art"
> 
> .... has promise.


I agree we've gotten sidetracked, for which I take partial responsibility: I got bogged down in a debate about the definition of "art," which is wide of the topic (and an endless discussion anyway).

I find I have a tendency to delve into minutiae. Sometimes this can be a benefit (as in the composing process, where the best artistic nuances are often found among the minutiae), but often it can be a distraction.


----------



## Living Fossil (Oct 24, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Oct 02 said:


> I didn't list it as the _only_ factor, just one of them. That said, Bach is an exception. Let's review those generally acknowledged as the greatest artists among composers: Mozart? Ground breaking. Beethoven? Ground breaking. Wagner? Ground breaking. Debussy? Ground breaking.. Stravinsky? Ground breaking. Schoenberg? Ground breaking.. Varese? Ground breaking.



Most of what appears as "groundbreaking" is due to a lack of historical context...

In fact, it can be rather hard to distinguish Mozart from his contemporary composers.
(even if his singing allegro is somehow a trademark)

That what distinguishes the "really big" composers from their contemporaries are often aspects which can rather be evaluated through an in-depth-analysis.
Often it's the formal-structural complexity; the inner logic in the use of tonal regions and harmonic details; the stringency in the voicings etc. 
Usually it's rather the act of bringing existing techniques to perfection than reinventing the wheel.

Did Wagner invent the Leitmotiv? C.M. Weber and some others would protest...
Is Varese's music possible without the whole "bruitisme"? Why not mentioning George Antheil?

And if we speak about "groundbreaking":
What about Gesualdo?
What about F. Halévy's opera "Promethé enchainé" that uses quartertones in 1849 [!] ?

And if J.S. Bach was not "groundbreaking": What about the Preludium in a-minor from the WTC2 (BWV 889) ? It contains aspects of a blueprint for Schoenberg's twelve-tone-technique...
What about Bach's combination of the "modern" tonality with the "outdated" modality that sometimes emerges in poly-modal/tonal textures?
(take a look at "Ach Golgatha" or the midpart of BWV 803, e.g.)


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 24, 2014)

Spoken like a musicologist, Siegfried! I like the way you think.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 24, 2014)

Living Fossil @ 24th October 2014 said:


> Most of what appears as "groundbreaking" is due to a lack of historical context...
> 
> -------------
> 
> Usually it's rather the act of bringing existing techniques to perfection than reinventing the wheel.



An interesting point.

In recent times, there has been almost a fetish about "the new," to the exclusion in many cases of art / music / poetry having any other once-prized quality -- craft, audience enjoyment, "beauty," etc. There's a piece in The Economist about what makes a modern artist, and there is plenty of room for total rubbish to fit in those definitions.

"academic or entertainer, materialist or idealist, narcissist or altruist; I think artists have become 'ultimate individuals....'"

"are you an artist or are you an activist?" "are you an artist or are you a craftsman?"

"An artist is an enemy of general sensibilities." Ai Weiwei

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero ... hat-artist

I suppose there has always been a lot of puffed up foolishness in the arts, but during the 1970s and 1980s it became almost a rule. Thank goodness that wave is dying away, finally.


----------



## muk (Oct 25, 2014)

Living Fossil @ Fri Oct 24 said:


> That what distinguishes the "really big" composers from their contemporaries are often aspects which can rather be evaluated through an in-depth-analysis.
> Often it's the formal-structural complexity; the inner logic in the use of tonal regions and harmonic details; the stringency in the voicings etc.



+1 to this. Exactly my understanding of what it is that sets the greatest composers apart.

I don't agree about BWV 889 containing "aspects of a blueprint for Schoenberg's twelve-tone-technique" though. Schoenberg himself brought this example up to show that his twelve-tone-technique had a firm root in music tradition. He liked to think that it wasn't a radical break with tradition, but a logical next step in the development. So he intended to show that aspects of his twelve-tone-technique can be found in the music of Bach and Brahms, for example.
Be that as it may, BWV 889 is not a good example for that. It does contain all twelve semitones in it's theme, and that's what Schoenberg was referring to. But that's the specific idea behind it: to build a theme that uses all twelve semitones while staying well within traditional tonal harmony (and that's an integral and important part of the idea). Not an easy thing to do, and you can clearly hear that it is something very special. But take away the tonal harmony, and the magic behind that idea is gone, because it's nothing special to use all twelve semitones in a short time if your not bound by tonal harmony. In twelve-tone-technique it may even be a prerequisite. So, to say that this theme contains "aspects of a blueprint" of the twelve-tone-technique is to miss the very idea behind it.


----------



## Living Fossil (Oct 25, 2014)

muk @ Sat Oct 25 said:


> Be that as it may, BWV 889 is not a good example for that. It does contain all twelve semitones in it's theme, and that's what Schoenberg was referring to. But that's the specific idea behind it: to build a theme that uses all twelve semitones while staying well within traditional tonal harmony (and that's an integral and important part of the idea). Not an easy thing to do, and you can clearly hear that it is something very special. But take away the tonal harmony, and the magic behind that idea is gone, because it's nothing special to use all twelve semitones in a short time if your not bound by tonal harmony..



Reading your post i'm not sure if you're refering to BWV 889 or to the fugue in b-minor (869)...
Latter has a theme that contains 13 different notes (h sharp and c); in the praeludium in a-minor there are twelve-tone fields in the middle of some bars ; but they belong to two different voices. The "tonal harmony" in the a-minor preludium is extremely complex - sometimes asynchronous - if you take a closer look. And also, the entire harmony is *built by *those two voices using the twelve notes in a row (no additional "harmony-voices"); and that's indeed one aspect of the dodecaphonic writing.
And that whole construct is used (in the second part) in inversion; thereby changing the harmonic meaning; that's also an aspect of dodecaphony...
With "aspects of a blueprint" i was also thinking of the way Bach uses the octave in this piece: he avoids them mostly and where he uses them it's for the same reason that Schoenberg prohibited them in his 12tone technique; since they are re-establishing the tonality that is in "danger" in the chromatic area (specially the second part of the preludium is really crazy). 


but anyhow, we are going offtopic inside of this topic...
sorry for that.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Oct 26, 2014)

I find myself listening to Shostakovich's Symphony No.13 today. A work I hardly know. After spending some time researching the piece, the meaning of the texts and the context in which it was written, it has brought to my attention things from history that I never knew, and that really shouldn't be forgotten.

Also it has made me reflect on my own 'career', such as it is, and wonder whether I am making the best use of my own talents, such as they are.

Shostakovich said, 'That is the power of Art'. And I believe him.


----------

