# Are you afraid to compose simple?



## Ivan M. (May 11, 2021)

Let's say someone today composes a theme like Mozart piano concerto no 21 mvt 2 andante, and presents it to a community of professional musicians (composers, orchestras, academia, publishers etc). How do you think they would react to it? Or how would you react? Seems simple right!? And after all the music history people might expect some elaborated harmony? Would such composer be ridiculed today?



I'll start, I only value music by how it speaks to me, not by complexity


----------



## Living Fossil (May 11, 2021)

Mozart's music is only "simple" as long as you don't look exactly or don't understand what's going on in the realm of details.
I don't think any living composer could get close to his level inside of that musical language.
(Imitating the style is easy, but getting all the musical consequences right is the huge challenge)


----------



## Ivan M. (May 11, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> Mozart's music is only "simple" as long as you don't look exactly or don't understand what's going on in the realm of details.
> I don't think any living composer could get close to his level inside of that musical language.
> (Imitating the style is easy, but getting all the musical consequences right is the huge challenge)


That's Mozart in general, but how about the above example theme, there's nothing special about it if you look at the paper only. I don't want to focus on Mozart, but on simple but beautifull themes, and how the professional community might judge it?


----------



## Living Fossil (May 11, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> That's Mozart in general, but how about the above example theme, there's nothing special about it if you look at the paper only. I don't want to focus on Mozart, but on simple but beautifull themes, and how the professional community might judge it?


You have to go further than the mere theme. (Writing "themes" isn't where composing in a traditional sense begins).
But as this movement goes on, there are plenty of interesting details.

p.s. and maybe you should go for a better recording. this is terrible.


----------



## José Herring (May 11, 2021)

You are asking the wrong question in my opinion. The right question is how did he get something this simple to work for all time. 

You or I could try to write like this and it would not be accepted at all. All the power in music is being simple without being stupid. I always thought my music was either too complicated or too stupid. I've not being able to breach the level of Mozart or Beethoven who could write sometimes the most simple stuff and it sounds brilliant. It's the secret to the universal acceptance of music. 

Mozart, Beethoven and Bach and Debussy had it all the time. Stravinsky had it some of the time. Many have had it at one time or another even within the same piece. 

In school I had professors that use to scoff at this kind of music as trite and simplistic. They all died with no money and nobody ever having heard their work.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 11, 2021)

José Herring said:


> In school I had professors that use to scoff at this kind of music as trite and simplistic. They all died with no money and nobody ever having heard their work.


The older i get the more i'm glad that i had indeed teachers with a very deep understanding of the music they taught. Instead of speaking in such cases of "simplistic" they pointed out where the complexity lies.

Sometimes, the best approach to get an understanding what the difference between "simplistic" and "simple yet complex" is, is by looking at some really simplistic music and then comparing it...


----------



## Consona (May 11, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Let's say someone today composes a theme like Mozart piano concerto no 21 mvt 2 andante


You can stop your thought experiment right there.




José Herring said:


> All the power in music is being simple without being stupid. I always thought my music was either too complicated or too stupid. I've not being able to breach the level of Mozart or Beethoven who could write sometimes the most simple stuff and it sounds brilliant.


Some of the, if not the, best stuff I've read here ever.


----------



## Ivan M. (May 11, 2021)

Consona said:


> You can stop your thought experiment right there.


So what's so special about it (so that it's exempt from any thought of being bad in any context)?


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 11, 2021)

The question should be _'can'_ you write simple. Finding the essence of poetry and beauty in the most succinct way is hard won.


----------



## Ivan M. (May 11, 2021)

José Herring said:


> You or I could try to write like this and it would not be accepted at all. All the power in music is being simple without being stupid. I always thought my music was either too complicated or too stupid.


But how do you know that? Maybe it's just fear?


----------



## Bman70 (May 11, 2021)

Don't ask whether it's too simple or too complex, I agree with José it seems like the wrong question. Ask what the piece, the theme needs, to fullfill what it's expressing. Not what you 'can do'... that's like opening a box of woodworking tools and saying, "What can these tools do? Should I do simple stuff with them, or complex stuff?" Instead, if you have a vision for a one-piece coffee table, then you will know what tools to use. Mozart said his pieces mostly came to him in a mostly realized vision, but we don't need that to happen in order to discern what each theme is trying to say, and then give it what it needs. Mozart didn't add more ingredients at that point in that piece because it didn't need it.


----------



## Consona (May 11, 2021)

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan, listening to that music makes me feel like an utter impostor.



Ivan M. said:


> So what's so special about it (so that it's exempt from any thought of being bad in any context)?


The idea, how fluently the development flows. It's perfection. This is peak music.

Of course you can make it bad with context. It would probably not win a prize for the most aggressive electro-industrial track ever. But if your context is musicality, then this is it.


----------



## Toecutter (May 11, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Or how would you react?


Probably: Dude, what strings library you used?? Tutorial now!

I would react the same way I'm reacting now: tears! This is masterful writing, food for the soul, no matter how simple it may be. I don't think it is but I digress. I never heard anything remotely close to this posted on vicontrol, I would love to meet talented composers like this Wolfgang dude.


----------



## Ivan M. (May 11, 2021)

Consona said:


> Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan, listening to that music makes me feel like an utter impostor.
> 
> 
> The idea, how fluently the development flows. It's perfection. This is peak music.
> ...


I like it too, but not that much, it is beautiful, but also kinda boring, Mozart is overrated 😁


----------



## José Herring (May 11, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> But how do you know that? Maybe it's just fear?


Nah, brutal life experience.


----------



## youngpokie (May 11, 2021)

It's entirely possible that as a society we developed a cultural stereotype about Mozart and simply _believe _he is the greatest composer evah.

But a significant number of people also declare that Bach is the greatest composer who ever lived. The irony is that Bach was almost completely forgotten after his death and it took intensive "marketing" and "promotion" by a fan, Felix Mendelssohn (to use modern terminology), to create this reputation.

Mozart died an early and tragic death, and we know today what that does to reputation. Beethoven towers over everyone, but it was his nearly forgotten contemporary who gave us several hundred years of "Romantic style". 

So, I think it's important to distinguish between celebrity, reputation and actual musical analysis.

And when it comes to musical analysis there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying Mozart's music is simple. It was written in a different time, based on a system of harmony that in its pure form sounds outdated today. Mozart's orchestration is also simple, considering the orchestra was only being finalized in structure in his day. The piano looked and sounded quite different. Even the sonata form was improved by the subsequent generation.

But simplicity is not a weakness, it just a fact. To me Mozart's music is probably the most sophisticated, beautiful, effortless and artful example from what we call the "Classical Era", its zenith and crowning achievement. That's based on my own experience but mainly on what I had been taught since childhood.

But back to the OP - it depends on who you ask. Music school teachers would laugh in your face if you wrote something like this today, and would suspect you're just ripping off Mozart. The modernists would not take you seriously as a composer and laugh at you behind your back.

(Edit: corrected wrong word)


----------



## Ben E (May 11, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> But simplicity is not a weakness, it just a fact. To me Mozart's music is probably the most sophisticated, beautiful, effortless and artful example from what we call the "Classical Era", its nadir and crowning achievement. That's based on my own experience but mainly on what I had been taught since childhood.


Did you mean nadir here? Or did you mean zenith?


----------



## Ben E (May 11, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> But simplicity is not a weakness, it just a fact. To me Mozart's music is probably the most sophisticated, beautiful, effortless and artful example from what we call the "Classical Era", its nadir and crowning achievement. That's based on my own experience but mainly on what I had been taught since childhood.


Did you mean nadir here? Or did you mean zenith?


----------



## youngpokie (May 11, 2021)

Ben E said:


> Did you mean nadir here? Or did you mean zenith?


I corrected it. Thanks!


----------



## Arbee (May 11, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Let's say someone today composes a theme like Mozart piano concerto no 21 mvt 2 andante, and presents it to a community of professional musicians (composers, orchestras, academia, publishers etc). How do you think they would react to it? Or how would you react? Seems simple right!? And after all the music history people might expect some elaborated harmony? Would such composer be ridiculed today?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll start, I only value music by how it speaks to me, not by complexity



Great thread, there are a couple of responses that come to mind.

To me, this is one of the greatest examples of "elegant simplicity" in music ever. Look at the melodic structure and development, classic textbook. Elgar's Nimrod Variation strikes me the same way.

The composer of such a piece today might be mocked by musicians but much loved by the music public (remind you of a few people?).

Like so many great works of the masters, the modern attention span probably only stays around for the initial motif + about 60 seconds. Sadly, I'm not sure many folk these days have the capability, patience or will to follow the beautiful intricacies of musical development for another 5 - 25 minutes.


----------



## Bollen (May 11, 2021)

I've had a few mentors in my life that believed "you can write whatever you want, as long as it's a contribution to the human repertoire". The "contribution" part is bit vague and up to the individual... But you could say what is the point of writing like Mozart when we already have Mozart? Hence it makes more sense or it's at least 'safer' to work with modern tools that have less reputation or repertoire attached to them.

With respect to "simple", I've never heard anyone complaining about something being too simple. Simple is not the opposite of sophisticated, it's the opposite of busy or cluttered. Satie is simple, so are most of the minimalists, but nobody would call their music unsophisticated... Simple is good, but it's also one of many possible states, don't narrow your creative palette.


----------



## CT (May 11, 2021)

I am a minimalist in most respects in life. My native musical tongue is not purely influenced by minimalist music (though it is to some degree), but I definitely prize clarity and economy of means in whatever I do. Mozart is a good model of that even if I don't love his music as much as, say, Bach's, which may sound less simple on the surface (sometimes, anyway) but follows its own principles and inner logic which, to me, gives it that kind of clarity and economy that I'm after. In fact I'm as interested in Baroque and pre-Baroque compositional methods as I am in minimalist procedures as ways of keeping things tightly knit; they're often closely related.

I also love a lot of music that's florid, unwieldy, and maybe a bit excessive and overwrought (though who am I to say?). I'm less interested in writing that kind of thing at my core, but I definitely struggle at times with feeling that I have to prove something, to myself more than anyone else I guess, by following those models as well. I think it really holds me back, not because I end up writing something I'm not fully committed to, but because it makes me that much more critical of the "simple" music I do actually write. I'd likely be more prolific if I could be more accepting of who I am and what interests me as a composer.


----------



## JohnG (May 11, 2021)

José Herring said:


> They all died with no money and nobody ever having heard their work.


That's exactly why I have spent my life pursuing the creation of a musical Horcrux. [cackles unhing-ed-ly]


----------



## Soundbed (May 11, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Let's say someone today composes a theme like Mozart piano concerto no 21 mvt 2 andante, and presents it to a community of professional musicians (composers, orchestras, academia, publishers etc). How do you think they would react to it? Or how would you react? Seems simple right!? And after all the music history people might expect some elaborated harmony? Would such composer be ridiculed today?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll start, I only value music by how it speaks to me, not by complexity



We could agree it's a fairly "simple" theme, especially for people of today to hear, but it has a complex development and that is how a community of professional musicians (and I) would respond to it; they'd look at the development.

As mentioned (or alluded to) by someone else, music composition is largely about the development of a theme, not only the theme itself.

I see some pretty cool harmonic motion in the piece. I'd guess many music writers today don't have the discipline (the "chops") to write like this ... on the other hand, it's a specific style that already sounds like Mozart.

So, a composer writing today would need to take a theme like this and develop in a way that doesn't sound like Mozart. (edit: ... to not be "ridiculed" for writing a pastiche.)

That's actually part of the challenge.

In short my goal is to write simple themes, develop them with some level of complexity (which implies parts that fit together and feel inevitable, but in a way that beguiles and captivates) without making the music complicated.

Complicated = bad.

Simple themes, complex development = good.


----------



## Dave Connor (May 11, 2021)

It seems to me that it’s near unanimous among composers that writing _simple _music is not any easier than any other kind. John Williams has said relentlessly that he struggles the most writing his themes, which are simple enough for an entire planet to sing effortlessly. A bang-up, multi-layered, carefully woven chase comes much easier to him apparently.

I think it’s a bit of a misnomer. Lack of s_ophistication_ is another matter where the music is _simplistic _in that it’s uninformed by a melodic or compositional gift (easily heard in sparse to dense arrangements.) Yanni rather notoriously would have numerous people playing with a frantic kineticism meant to suggest an underlying greatness by it’s author - which had the complete opposite effect.

Both the simple and complex writing of the Bach, Beethovens and Mozarts of the world are a wonder - and few described by a single adjective such as _simple. _Even their most child-like tunes are often attended by astonishing creativity often intended as material ripe for the most complex development. Whether the simple tunes in the Goldberg Variations, 5th Symphony or 40th Symphony, I don’t know if any of them would say, _Oh yes, all very simple. And simple to do!_


----------



## BlackDorito (May 11, 2021)

Soundbed said:


> In short my goal is to write simple themes, develop them with some level of complexity (which implies parts that fit together and feel inevitable, but in a way that beguiles and captivates) without making the music complicated.
> 
> Complicated = bad.
> 
> Simple themes, complex development = good.


For most of the music I listen to, I couldn't argue with this formula. Occasionally I go to new music events and the aesthetic is a bit different - rhythmic and harmonic complexity are the norm, and are expected. So just like physics, the rules can change at the fringe.


----------



## CT (May 11, 2021)

Yeah I'd definitely agree that the way musical material, simple or otherwise, is handled through form is almost always the thing that makes or breaks a piece for me. I think it might be the hardest thing to get right as a composer. Appealing building blocks can be discovered or hewn into shape, but it's truly difficult to put them together in a way that feels consequential. Obviously in the scoring world this is a non-issue, but in concert music....

Streams of ideas and colors whose relations, if any, would require poring over the score to uncover, banging away at every tuned percussion instrument under the sun, composers trying to outdo each other for most inscrutable notation... plenty of this stuff in a lot of the new music I hear. Not much compelling form and shape, regrettably. I understand priorities for many composers have shifted, but anything that feels more like _complicated_ music than _complex_ music loses me really fast as both a listener and composer... just as I'd say that _simple_ music is not the same as _simplistic_ music.


----------



## BlackDorito (May 11, 2021)

Yeah .. hehe, you need to be prepared for anything at a 'new music' event. I usually enjoy myself, but it's not because of the compelling form and shape. It's usually because I hear an interesting texture or gesture. And then there's the sheer delight at reading the convoluted rationale each composer gives about what inspired the creative upwelling that became their piece - geologic events, politics, Tuvan throat singing, you name it.


----------



## CT (May 11, 2021)

Oh man, isn't there a "BS contemporary composer program notes" generator out there? Fun stuff....


----------



## NoamL (May 11, 2021)

Purely opinion - I disagree with rating Mozart as one of the best composers ever, he's not in my top 10.

What I like in music is creative & colorful orchestration, powerful dynamism, heartfelt expression, and bold harmonic choices. You can probably tell from this that I've never met a 19th-20th century Russian composer I didn't like....

For me Mozart's music sounds simple, constricted, toylike, predictable, unemotional... You can go back decades or centuries before Mozart and composers like Gesualdo, Machaut, Vivaldi, Purcell, Handel, Gabrieli, and of course, the mighty BACH, are creating music that feels totally at odds with Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven. It's like someone came along and "streamlined" all the spirituality out of music.

Beethoven (like Mendelssohn) gets some points in my book for clearly having a dramatic flair in his music and struggling against the restrictions of classicism. Haydn was just one of the best musical craftsmen ever, simply a genius of practicality and good taste, and it's hard to fault his music. So the composers I like least from the classical era are the ones who are most admired by pro-classicists - the ones who "perfected" classical music... in all its dullness... folks like Mozart and Boccherini (and also to some extent composers who are called "early Romantics" like Schumann and Schubert, I find the same problems in their music). I suppose their works make good foundational repertoire for certain instruments but otherwise I don't find much use for it!!


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 11, 2021)

Mike T said:


> Yeah I'd definitely agree that the way musical material, simple or otherwise, is handled through form is almost always the thing that makes or breaks a piece for me. I think it might be the hardest thing to get right as a composer. Appealing building blocks can be discovered or hewn into shape, but it's truly difficult to put them together in a way that feels consequential. Obviously in the scoring world this is a non-issue, but in concert music....
> 
> Streams of ideas and colors whose relations, if any, would require poring over the score to uncover, banging away at every tuned percussion instrument under the sun, composers trying to outdo each other for most inscrutable notation... plenty of this stuff in a lot of the new music I hear. Not much compelling form and shape, regrettably. I understand priorities for many composers have shifted, but anything that feels more like _complicated_ music than _complex_ music loses me really fast as both a listener and composer... just as I'd say that _simple_ music is not the same as _simplistic_ music.


Excellent post. No one with taste observing a famous sculpture says to themselves "that statue is a simple piece of art... it's just a dude standing there." It's what the artist does with the subject that makes it meaningful.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 11, 2021)

Aside from the treatment of a musical theme being of paramount concern, I will add what _appears_ as "simple" is actually an incredibly complex set of ratios designed (intentionally or not) to efficiently access _a priori_ mental deductive functions geared to ascertain order.


----------



## bill5 (May 11, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Would such composer be ridiculed today?


Only by people without a clue. Complexity has nothing to do with quality. There is complex music which is brilliant and complex music that is laughably bad and all in between. Likewise with extremely simple music. In fact, IMO one of the true marks of talent, in fact genius, is being able to compose a song which is simple and yet still of the highest quality.


----------



## Gerbil (May 11, 2021)

I don't see a problem with writing something in a classical galant style. Or baroque, late romantic, minimalist, epic...or like Bill Evans, John Williams, John Adams, John Tavener...

Nearly all of the music I've heard submitted on this forum has followed a well-trodden (often deliberately pastiche) path. That's not a criticism as I've enjoyed a lot of it but very few composers will create music with the unmistakable personality of, say, Shostakovich. Some styles and composers are obviously more 'in' at the moment but that wont last forever. Ultimately, a good piece of music is just that (and that Mozart work is a very good piece of music!) 

Who cares who scoffs at your choice of style? When I was at the RCM in the late-80s we were all locked away in our little bubble, reading books by Paul Griffiths and Alexander Goehr, being told what styles we should be writing in. That world is long dead. This is the 21st century - the internet era - and anything goes.

The world is vastly over-saturated with enough great music to last umpteen lifetimes, so write what you like in whatever styles you like, whether simple or complex, and hope someone hears it and keeps it in their collection.


----------



## Ivan M. (May 11, 2021)

Soundbed said:


> We could agree it's a fairly "simple" theme, especially for people of today to hear, but it has a complex development and that is how a community of professional musicians (and I) would respond to it; they'd look at the development.


Ah, but why would development be so important, see this:



it's 1 minute or less in length, and only one small modulation. And it's still in the repertoire: is it because it's signed by the famous name Chopin or because it sounds nice?


----------



## yiph2 (May 11, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Ah, but why would development be so important, see this:
> 
> 
> 
> it's 1 minute or less in length, and only one small modulation. And it's still in the repertoire: is it because it's signed by the famous name Chopin or because it sounds nice?



Maybe cuz its 1 minute and not 5+ minutes??? Also its like 16 bars


----------



## Ivan M. (May 11, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> The irony is that Bach was almost completely forgotten after his death and it took intensive "marketing" and "promotion" by a fan, Felix Mendelssohn (to use modern terminology), to create this reputation.


Exactly! Or to think about rejections Tchaikovsky, Rach and others got at their time, for stuff that's great! I think it's envy and snobbery by contemporaries.







ps: more hilarious images like this: http://https://imgur.com/a/DddIUgr (HERE)


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 11, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> it's 1 minute or less in length, and only one small modulation. And it's still in the repertoire: is it because it's signed by the famous name Chopin or because it sounds nice?


Without giving too many secrets away, it is the reverse of another Chopin piece later appropriated by John Williams. 😉 .....duplication and processes which, meet the expectations determined by our disposition toward order.


----------



## Ivan M. (May 12, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Without giving too many secrets away, it is the reverse of another Chopin piece later appropriated by John Williams. 😉 .....duplication and processes which, meet the expectations determined by our disposition toward order.


Sorry, I don't get it, can you be more specific?


----------



## Bman70 (May 12, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Ah, but why would development be so important, see this:
> 
> 
> 
> it's 1 minute or less in length, and only one small modulation. And it's still in the repertoire: is it because it's signed by the famous name Chopin or because it sounds nice?



Are you saying this is simple? See, things can seem simple once some genius takes the time to make it that way, whittle away all the things that don't fit and leave only the distilled essence. But the people who say it's simple would probably struggle to finish it if given the first few bars to complete on their own. I wish someone here would try to write a piece of that length that is such a perfect musical statement, as well as sentimentally warm and whimsical, familiar and comfortable. Without sounding like an unremarkable exercise.


----------



## youngpokie (May 12, 2021)

bill5 said:


> Only by people without a clue. Complexity has nothing to do with quality. There is complex music which is brilliant and complex music that is laughably bad and all in between. Likewise with extremely simple music.


This is an important point and needs a little clarification, in my opinion. 

The context is that music has always evolved from simple to complex. From the pentatonic scale folk music to the diatonic scale of Classical Era. Then, to the chromaticism of the Romantics and the dissonance and destruction of tonality by the modernists. The same exact process happened in orchestration - from few to many instrument families, from small to large orchestras, etc. The internal logic is clear: from less to more, from simple to complex, from small to large.

One can certainly argue that this happened because it was an easier way to "get noticed" and stand out, and especially because there wasn't a talent alive, in each era, on the level of Mozart who could stand out even while being simple. 

And then each era created its own stylistic benchmark and trained a generation or more of ears to "hear" and perceive music a certain way, and to them music from the prior generations sounds primitive and simplistic. Like Mozart to the OP 

So, in this context, complexity is culturally perceived as a sign of something superior and simplicity as something inferior. 

But complexity in the context of musical analysis and craftsmanship is a different thing altogether, it is a technique and has nothing to do with quality.


----------



## GNP (May 12, 2021)

As long as it works, complex or simple doesn't really matter.
But I have to say it's easier writing complex stuff that vaguely works, compared to writing simple stuff that is effective.


----------



## fourier (May 12, 2021)

Take it from someone working with railways, the common phrase is that railway (engineering) isn't very complicated, but very complex. As with music, I struggle with the word "simple".


----------



## tmhuud (May 12, 2021)

“ Man produces little that is lasting—truly lasting. It's understandable. Fear, conformity, immorality; these are heavy burdens. Great drainers of creative energy. And when we are drained of creative energy we do not create. We procreate; we do not create.

The human race has a gift . . . that sets it above all the other creatures that abound upon this planet: the gift of thought, of reasoning, of understanding. The highly-developed brain. But the human race has ceased to develop. It struggles for petty comfort and false security; there is no time for thought. Soon there will be no time for reasoning, and Man will lose sight of the truth.” - 

— “The Sixth Finger,” The Outer Limits, broadcast 14 October 1963


----------



## youngpokie (May 12, 2021)

Mike T said:


> the way musical material, simple or otherwise, is handled through form is almost always the thing that makes or breaks a piece for me. I think it might be the hardest thing to get right as a composer.


To me, the one thing that stands out about Mozart is how truly effortless his music sounds, simple or not, and how natural and organic is his handling of form. It's as if it just came down to him like that, fully formed and intact.


----------



## storyteller (May 12, 2021)

Not to compare Mozart to the Beatles... but I’ve posed a similar question regarding bands like the Beatles. Clearly two different genres and types of talent... I know. But if the Beatles came out today and no one like the Beatles had existed before now, would they be heralded in the same way? Almost certainly no... but mostly I think it is because the modern world and modern recording techniques would butcher their music. My now 15yo daughter discovered the Beatles years ago on her own and adores them. That speaks volume about the magic that was captured in their recordings. Timing is as key to the talent in regards to exposure, and character of the recordings. I mean, would Zimmer’s film scores be revered in the same way without Air Lyndhurst’s existence? The talent would be there, but his use of the acoustics in that hall is part of the beauty and his craft. Would Michaelangelo be as famous if he painted the Sistine chapel‘s art on the side of a building instead? Probably not. The list goes on for me. In the end, I think it is not just the talent... that part is inarguable... but also the ways they brought it into this world.

If you get a chance, watch the movie Yesterday. It is a quirky comedy about no one remembering the Beatles except for one guy who then tried to recreate the magic of the Beatles’ music. It hits home in many regards here.


----------



## Soundbed (May 12, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Ah, but why would development be so important, see this:
> 
> 
> 
> it's 1 minute or less in length, and only one small modulation. And it's still in the repertoire: is it because it's signed by the famous name Chopin or because it sounds nice?



Are you honestly asking why development is (so) important in music?

The answer is like this: anyone can have an idea. It’s how that idea gets realized and put forth into the world that matters (to everyone else).

The other thing to reiterate is a composer’s “voice”. How a composer develops an idea is far more interesting to me than how relatively simple it seems based on my understanding of the techniques used. Advanced techniques seem simple after you’ve mastered them.


----------



## mikrokosmiko (May 12, 2021)

NoamL said:


> Purely opinion - I disagree with rating Mozart as one of the best composers ever, he's not in my top 10.
> 
> What I like in music is creative & colorful orchestration, powerful dynamism, heartfelt expression, and bold harmonic choices. You can probably tell from this that I've never met a 19th-20th century Russian composer I didn't like....
> 
> ...


I'm really curious about who is in your top 10, if Mozart is meh and Beethoven gets "some points". 

Man, Schubert? Really? Have you listened to his lieder? I mean, is that post a real opinion or are you simply trolling us?


----------



## Heinigoldstein (May 12, 2021)

mikrokosmiko said:


> I'm really curious about who is in your top 10, if Mozart is meh and Beethoven gets "some points".
> 
> Man, Schubert? Really? Have you listened to his lieder? I mean, is that post a real opinion or are you simply trolling us?


I have to say, that I salute to Noaml for being that brave to not praise Mozart. I share his taste I guess. No doubt about, that he was brilliant, a genius. But I just don't like most of his work either. Im afraid to say this, but I feel bored when I hear him. Is it a sacrilege ? Its just a matter of taste I think. And I share Noams sight of Schubert and Schumann too.......arrrrghh, more blasphemy I'm afraid


----------



## youngpokie (May 12, 2021)

Soundbed said:


> Are you honestly asking why development is (so) important in music?


If development is so important, why is there so little of it in film music?


----------



## JohnG (May 12, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> If development is so important, why is there so little of it in film music?


??? There is tons of development in film music. It just happens differently from what Mozart did. We don't modulate to the dominant, relative minor, etc. the way he did. Or, if we do, we don't do it the _way_ he did it or it would sound old-fashioned to movie-goers' ears.

Very weak film music just keeps playing the tune, only louder / higher / lower. Stronger film music (John Williams, James Newton Howard, John Powell) take their material through all kinds of gyrations to give it variety, while retaining unity.

As a reminder, listen to JNH's "Signs" score. If I didn't love so many of his others, I think that bit of dazzling cell development might be my top choice of his. But then there's "Dave," "Michael Clayton," "Dinosaur," "Peter Pan,".....


----------



## Rodney Money (May 12, 2021)

mikrokosmiko said:


> I'm really curious about who is in your top 10, if Mozart is meh and Beethoven gets "some points".
> 
> Man, Schubert? Really? Have you listened to his lieder? I mean, is that post a real opinion or are you simply trolling us?


He is definitely not a troll, I completely understand him, and agree with him also.


----------



## mikrokosmiko (May 12, 2021)

Heinigoldstein said:


> I have to say, that I salute to Noaml for being that brave to not praise Mozart. I share his taste I guess. No doubt about, that he was brilliant, a genius. But I just don't like most of his work either. Im afraid to say this, but I feel bored when I hear him. Is it a sacrilege ? Its just a matter of taste I think. And I share Noams sight of Schubert and Schumann too.......arrrrghh, more blasphemy I'm afraid


No, no, no, not a sacrilege, I also don't like Mozart, it usually bores me also. But come on, there's a difference between not liking something and not appreciating its value


----------



## youngpokie (May 12, 2021)

JohnG said:


> ??? There is tons of development in film music. It just happens differently from what Mozart did. We don't modulate to the dominant, relative minor, etc. the way he did. Or, if we do, we don't do it the _way_ he did it or it would sound old-fashioned to movie-goers' ears.


I think film music is a genre uniquely unsuitable for development. At best, there are variations but even those must be clearly recognizable to make the picture work, so you can never stray very far.

My personal opinion: film music is more comparable to French impressionism, which stands on its own as a style with very little development, and is more like the kaleidoscope of colors applied to the same repeating themes.


----------



## CT (May 12, 2021)

JohnG said:


> ??? There is tons of development in film music. It just happens differently from what Mozart did. We don't modulate to the dominant, relative minor, etc. the way he did. Or, if we do, we don't do it the _way_ he did it or it would sound old-fashioned to movie-goers' ears.
> 
> Very weak film music just keeps playing the tune, only louder / higher / lower. Stronger film music (John Williams, James Newton Howard, John Powell) take their material through all kinds of gyrations to give it variety, while retaining unity.
> 
> As a reminder, listen to JNH's "Signs" score. If I didn't love so many of his others, I think that bit of dazzling cell development might be my top choice of his. But then there's "Dave," "Michael Clayton," "Dinosaur," "Peter Pan,".....


Yeah exactly. Film music might not often indulge in traditional form, but development abounds....

As for Noam, he's no troll, he's just the most controversial man on VI-Control! I will also confess to a dip in interest in composers from roughly 1750 to the late 1800s.


----------



## Ivan M. (May 12, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> and to them music from the prior generations sounds primitive and simplistic. Like Mozart to the OP


I never said that



Soundbed said:


> Are you honestly asking why development is (so) important in music?
> 
> The answer is like this: anyone can have an idea. It’s how that idea gets realized and put forth into the world that matters (to everyone else).


From your previous post, I thought you were talking about development in time/form, and not merely having an unfinished idea. That's why I gave that Chopin example. Not sure what you consider by development at this point.
Anyway, my interest is in perception of these short themes by the professional public. Mozart's theme is really simple, like a simple melody above, and you just press some repeated chords bellow it. What's so developed or special about that? Sounds nice, yes, and I like it, I don't judge it by simplicity. But again imagine it's not Mozart, remove the social status from the music title, and you're left with something (I believe) academia would, unfairly, laugh at.


----------



## Ivan M. (May 12, 2021)

Heinigoldstein said:


> I have to say, that I salute to Noaml for being that brave to not praise Mozart. I share his taste I guess. No doubt about, that he was brilliant, a genius. But I just don't like most of his work either. Im afraid to say this, but I feel bored when I hear him. Is it a sacrilege ? Its just a matter of taste I think. And I share Noams sight of Schubert and Schumann too.......arrrrghh, more blasphemy I'm afraid


Ooooh, is it such a big deal to say that, ok then: MOZART SUCKS! :D


----------



## Ivan M. (May 12, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> My personal opinion: film music is more comparable to French impressionism, which stands on its own as a style with very little development, and is more like the kaleidoscope of colors applied to the same repeating themes.


If I recall correctly, a free use of harmony was there in opera way before impressionism. Simply, because it's the right tool and suitable for ,,story+picture". It was somewhat independent from functional harmony world


----------



## JohnG (May 12, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> film music is more comparable to French impressionism, which stands on its own as a style with very little development


That is far too general a statement. JW develops themes all over the place, as do others. 

Some don't. 

And sometimes the composer is shackled by schedule or the director's penchant for "just playing the theme." I remember one of the "Star Trek" movies hauled out the main title every major scene, but that's not all on MG.


----------



## youngpokie (May 12, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Ooooh, is it such a big deal to say that, ok then: MOZART SUCKS! :D


 I don't think Mozart is the "greatest composer" but I would like to know if there is really a single person on the planet who thinks this sucks:





Ivan M. said:


> If I recall correctly, a free use of harmony was there in opera way before impressionism. Simply, because it's the right tool and suitable for ,,story+picture". It was somewhat independent from functional harmony world


Maybe, I don't know - the only point I am making is that "development" is another one of those words that people use to boost perceived value of something.

It's the same exact argument but in different words, and in my personal opinion music doesn't "need" development to be worthwhile or beautiful. Just like it doesn't need "complexity".


----------



## Ivan M. (May 12, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> I don't think Mozart is the "greatest composer" but I would like to know if there is really a single person on the planet who thinks this sucks:


Ah, of course I like Mozart, it's just that I don't find him compatible with me most of the time.
I don't see music through theory, and couldn't care less what any critic thinks. Music is a form of communication, people talk through music, you see into the soul of another. 
That's why there is no best composer. We all have our friends in music. I like Mozart, and I'm sure he likes me from the other side :D , it's just that what he said through his music is not something emotionally compatible with me most of the time. We are simply not on the same wavelength. But sometimes we are, and we have a blast! If that makes sense. :D


----------



## CT (May 12, 2021)

Compelling form doesn't have to include "development" in the usual way, I agree. I think it makes the job a lot harder though if one eschews that.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 12, 2021)

fourier said:


> Take it from someone working with railways, the common phrase is that railway (engineering) isn't very complicated, but very complex.


The distinction between complicated and complex is a very essential one, and it's a pity that the term "complexity" often gets used without distinction for both meanings e.g. in avant-garde music.

Complex things often may appear to be very simple. However, the crucial point is that the involved elements emerge into new qualities (as in the saying "the sum is more as the parts").

Complicatedness on the other hand might be necessary in cases, but often complicatedness is the result when wrong tools are used. That's why it's not unusual that complicated things that seem to be quite complex at first sight may be quite banal indeed.


----------



## youngpokie (May 12, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Ah, of course I like Mozart, it's just that I don't find him compatible with me most of the time.


I used to think this way about Brahms and Stravinsky. But I heard a podcast some years ago about how to listen to Brahms' 2nd piano concerto, and to this day I have goosebumps and a very strong emotional reaction whenever I hear it played. But Stravinsky, Mahler, Bruckner leave me completely cold. I cannot connect with their music - _because I don't know how, _and I tried to, repeatedly. Perhaps it's similar to your "problem" with Mozart. And actually, I would truly appreciate pointers on how to connect with Mahler and Stravinsky....!!



Ivan M. said:


> I don't see music through theory, and couldn't care less what any critic thinks.


To me, theory and critics are two different worlds. I suppose to listen to music through theory is to follow what happens to the melody, orchestration, etc as the music unfolds. I compare it to 2D vs 3D in movies, if you learn how to do it without seeing it as "work", a whole new level of enjoyment and emotional connection will open up to you. I don't know how to describe it well, to me it's as if I feel a kind of empathy to the music itself?

But critics are about something else - the worst of them are all about assigning value and making pronouncements for us unwashed peasants about who's immortal and who isn't. The story of how American music critics abruptly changed their opinion about Tchaikovsky right after Oscar Wilde's trial and how that new dogma still persists in "academia" to this day deserves a book (and a movie).


----------



## JohnG (May 12, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> the only point I am making is that "development" is another one of those words that people use to boost perceived value of something.


Well if your objection to the word "development" is that it feels to you redolent of academic tosh and pretense, ok -- nobody really likes academic tosh and pretense. In fact, I don't think even most _academic_ musicians like that, nor are they unaware of it.




youngpokie said:


> It's the same exact argument but in different words, and in my personal opinion music doesn't "need" development to be worthwhile or beautiful. Just like it doesn't need "complexity".


I mean, "doesn't need" development -- not sure what you mean by that, or complexity?

If you mean, "there is a lot of arbitrary complexity and essentially non-musical overlay in much 20th century music," then I agree, especially when it's advanced in order to bolster the legitimacy of an otherwise tedious composition. I remember some of the rubbish foisted on me in my university years and I still am amazed that anyone could even _pretend_ to like it as music. As a math puzzle, ok, but who would voluntarily listen to that stuff a second time?

On the other hand, almost all compositions longer than 30 seconds develop in some way.

So maybe you just don't like stuffy academic bluffing -- if so, I expect most people here agree!


----------



## youngpokie (May 12, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Well if your objection to the word "development" is that it feels to you redolent of academic tosh and pretense, ok -- nobody really likes academic tosh and pretense.


Perhaps it's semantics. For me development is a technical term that is based on transformation that can make the major theme barely recognizable and needs time to unfold. That's also the reason why I wouldn't consider modulation to constitute development. In film, there is a) no time for this to take place and b) the music is not permitted to shift focus on itself. 



JohnG said:


> If you mean, "there is a lot of arbitrary complexity and essentially non-musical overlay in much 20th century music," then I agree, especially when it's advanced in order to bolster the legitimacy of an otherwise tedious composition.


Yes, exactly.


----------



## JohnG (May 12, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> Perhaps it's semantics. For me development is a technical term that is based on transformation that can make the major theme barely recognizable and needs time to unfold. That's also the reason why I wouldn't consider modulation to constitute development.


I do think it's 99% semantics.

*It's All About Me...*

Nevertheless, your definition of what development means is a bit narrower than my own. If I think of Bach's solo cello partita variations (which I love), then I think your definition works pretty well.

However, I don't feel that, to consider a theme to have been developed, it has to be rendered "barely recognizable." I include under the general category of "development" plenty of techniques that allow the listener to recognise the theme / material, but it's altered in a new and interesting way.

Maybe you do too?

I include stuff like:

1. Changing meter,
2. Reorchestrating,
3. Stretto (stretching / shrinking),
4. Fragmenting bits of the theme into cells and playing around with it,
5. Changing key along with other variations (arrangement, chord progression, reorchestrating).

Obviously, an incomplete list, but I think my notion of development as a species is pretty inclusive.

Not that I think you're "wrong" or something -- we are all composers and it's part of our job to be opinionated.

Thanks for this interesting discussion @youngpokie


----------



## mscp (May 12, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> That's Mozart in general, but how about the above example theme, there's nothing special about it if you look at the paper only. I don't want to focus on Mozart, but on simple but beautifull themes, and how the professional community might judge it?


Long story short - In a very welcoming way.


----------



## mopsiflopsi (May 12, 2021)

Very interesting discussion! I'm not really qualified to analyze Mozart and argue with anyone here, but from a human psychology point of view I think the OP is probably onto something. 

The thing is, recognizing Mozart's genius is culturally a safe bet. You may dislike his music and still recognize his genius, reconciling your conformity with individuality at the same time. He is not the only person to reach that level of cultural reverence, so this is not just about music. In general someone of that kind of reputation might easily be given a pass on something that would be criticized harshly in someone else. Self doubt is part and parcel of any artist's mind, so you are more likely to assume the master knew what he was doing at all times, than staking your judgement on calling out something that looks odd to you.

The other thing is it's easier to praise a great genius who lived a long time ago because they are not a threat to our own ego to the same degree that a peer or student of ours might be. I have seen quite a few examples on this forum of people making assumptions about the expertise/skill level of present company, without actually knowing who's on the other side (in my case they are right; I suck). You may have heard this in your own personal lives too; someone will happily tell you "So and so is way out of our league, man. That person is not like you and I." It makes our limitations more bearable to assume other people around us are also limited in similar ways. And if you're the competitive sort to begin with? You might rather chew your own arm than to admit your social rival or pupil is better than you at something you care about deeply.

Here's a little story from my corner of culture: I once released a little game; a small game jam project done in a couple days. One "artistic choice" I had to make, due to time pressure, was to use a character model that did not have a face, because it was free and it was available. So it went in! As luck would have it, the project went viral and I had my two minutes of fame in my artistic bubble. Days later I met someone at some meetup who had played my little project but did not know I was the creator of it. He was adamant that the character models not having faces was a deliberate artistic choice with a lot of meaning loaded into it. This was accepted by other people in the conversation too and it apparently resonated with them strongly. Guess what? I didn't have the heart to tell them otherwise. Not saying I'm a genius or anything, or that Mozart just accidentally whistled a few tunes that really blew up... but rather that art, its value and valuation has a life of its own. The genius of the art itself and its creator continues to evolve way past the act of its creation and the facts of its circumstances.


----------



## Vonk (May 12, 2021)

I found the first 22 bars just about simple enough for my keyboard skill level as a soloist. After that it was all downhill.
Very interesting thread.


----------



## Arbee (May 12, 2021)

Heinigoldstein said:


> I have to say, that I salute to Noaml for being that brave to not praise Mozart. I share his taste I guess. No doubt about, that he was brilliant, a genius. But I just don't like most of his work either. Im afraid to say this, but I feel bored when I hear him. Is it a sacrilege ? Its just a matter of taste I think. And I share Noams sight of Schubert and Schumann too.......arrrrghh, more blasphemy I'm afraid


There is historical music that I respect (e.g JS Bach, Mozart, Liszt, most celebrated late romantic composers), and music that I enjoy (e.g. early Italian baroque composers, CPE Bach, Grieg), and occasionally both (e.g. Beethoven, Chopin, Ravel). The same goes for many contemporary artists and composers, and even folk on this forum. I'm OK with that, I don't have to enjoy everything that I respect.


----------



## Soundbed (May 12, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> The distinction between complicated and complex is a very essential one


This


----------



## EgM (May 12, 2021)

I make it my life mission to keep my music simple and melodic. I'm of the general idea that if you can't hum a song most of the people will forget it. But I LOVE adding very subtle hard work behind the scenes


----------



## muk (May 13, 2021)

The theme itself is indeed not complicated. It has a simplicity to it that is incredibly difficult to achieve though, as anybody who has tried writing such a theme can tell you. The timbral beauty and perfect proportion of this theme are the epitome of classical balance. And this even if it doesn't adhere to the most simple and often used structure of a theme, which is 4 + 4 bars. This one is 3 + 3, with one bar of introduction, making it an uneven number of bars. That's not your run of the mill classical procedure. If we look a bit further we see that the next phrase now is four measures. 3 + 3 + 4 is even more uncommon. Yet still it sounds absolutely natural and well balanced. After the harmonically simple - yet anything but simplistic! - theme, do analyze the following transition harmonically! Attached here is the second run of the theme with the soloist:










From measure 44 there is a build up that is harmonically very complex, using sharp dissonances. In relation to the harmonically straight forward theme, the effect is stark. Put this together, and I hope you now agree that the phrase 'this theme is very simple' is only half true. It is simple but unusual, and its simplicity is not an end in itself. Rather, it is explored throughout the movement and used to heighten the contrast to the dissonant development that follows.*

And that is only taking the smallest possible context into account. In order to comprehend its function, you have to look at the theme in the context of the whole movement. You'll notice, for example, that the recapitulation starts in the wrong key! It's not in F major, but in a flat major. Highly, highly unusual and something you'll want to explore and explain. Then you have to put the context of this whole movement in the context of the whole concerto, which has two more movements of course. Only then will you start to have a proper grasp on this simple, yet not simplistic, theme.

To give another brief example of the importance of context: look at the 'theme' of Beethoven's fifth symphony. This 'theme' - in essence much more a rhythm than a theme - by itself is almost laughable. Almost anybody can come up with something like this. But noone but Beethoven could come up with the music that enfolds and develops from this truly simple nucleus. So, as others have already said, context!

As to the Chopin Prélude you mentioned, here again you are ignoring the context. This short piece is certainly expertly crafted and great music. On its own it doesn't have the weight of a magnum opus. If a composer today would write such a piece, they would certainly be lauded and encouraged to write more (and probably in a totally different, modern style. Chopin existed, so don't be a copy of him but develop your own voice). The piece by itself wouldn't make them a Chopin. Put it in the context of the other Préludes though, and things look entirely different.



*(A technique that can also be observed in Bach's Prelude in C major from the Wohltemperiertes Klavier part I. A piece that, listening with todays hear, sounds beautiful if pretty tame and harmless. Gounod's melody written on it has further cemented its reception as recreational music. A usage that could not be further from the effect it must have had on contemporary listeners. For them, the dissonances that evolve from the purely consonant beginning must have been shocking and exciting.

Another familiar example could be the first chord of Beethoven's first symphony. Nothing special you might think, just a dominant seventh chord. If you take context into account, this chord was actually a scandalon. Never before has a symphony started with a dissonance (the seventh), and left it unclear in what key the piece is going to be).


----------



## river angler (May 13, 2021)

*Are you afraid to compose simple? *


…a great question to pose on this website where we all seem to bathe in the never ending abundance of VST plugins and increasingly sophisticated functionality in some of them!...

I certainly don’t “fear” composing in simple musical structures wether writing main theme or underscore. In fact it’s my favourite way of composing!

If you are referring specifically to writing main themes/songs I relish discovering a straight ahead captivating melody line that stands out in it’s own right with or without musical backing. Some of the most inspiring pieces of music I’ve ever written are those melodies that needn’t be embellished by complex arrangement because the melody is that evocative. 

A melody can be the single most fundamentally captivating element. It’s that melody we whistle in the bath! It’s the melody that may be supported by all manor of sophisticated, supportive, instrumental, chordal arrangement but fundamentally it is the melody in it’s pure monophonic form that most people remember and are captivated by. A great song or tune can sound just as strong emotionally played on a piano as by a full blown orchestra. Think: Jerome Kern, The Carpenters, Simon & Garfunkel, Beethoven’s 9th, The Radetzky March, London’s Burning, Oh! Danny Boy, Over The Rainbow, Hallelujah etc.

Yes! there are melodies/songs that can be considered trite by some yet meaningful to others. (Lionel Ritchie “Hello”, Mozart - Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K. 550) The level of sophistication in any piece of music actually lies in the listener and his or her ability to “listen between the notes” …which leads on to why sometimes a great melody is hinted at by sophisticated orchestration too! (think Khatchaturian’s adagio for Spartacus) and why composing with a complex instrumental structure can be just as effective.

Regarding your questions using Mozart as an example I think as others have pointed out, to a certain extent, our perception of what constitutes a great piece of "simple" music is tainted by how much certain styles of composition have become irritating to the ear through repetitive listening. (I swear often when accidentally tuning into Classic FM !) In this light Mozart isn't the only composer to suffer this trait.

Ultimately if I’m asked to write a main theme/song I always strive to “pluck melodies out of the sky” and present them in whatever way is really going to do that melody justice regardless of the arrangement being complex or not.


----------



## Megreen (May 15, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Let's say someone today composes a theme like Mozart piano concerto no 21 mvt 2 andante, and presents it to a community of professional musicians (composers, orchestras, academia, publishers etc). How do you think they would react to it?



Theme is not the entire composition. Theme can be consisted of 2 notes.
Nobody is judging the entire composition based on a theme only.


----------



## Rodney Money (May 17, 2021)

I can answer your question very easily, they would love it. I’ve got friends composing the most complex, mathematical, harmonically rich pieces yet I am getting the commissions instead because my little pieces have a somewhat “meaning” behind them. Here’s a piece of mine that is being commissioned right now by 2 churches, an ensemble, and a university and all it is is a simple hymn repeated 7 times with not even 1 accidental staying diatonic in the key of F Major. What are they using it for? Hope and to honor the memory of a friend. Here’s the simple theme that a child could’ve written:




and here’s the sound: https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/bvVgwjYQs9dx8PqJA


----------



## Ivan M. (May 17, 2021)

Rodney Money said:


> and here’s the sound: https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/bvVgwjYQs9dx8PqJA


Love it! The space is awesome! Where was it recorded, a big church?


----------



## Rodney Money (May 17, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Love it! The space is awesome! Where was it recorded, a big church?


Thank you so much for your words. They mean the world to me. It was recorded at Rosen Concert Hall with the curtains wide open at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolin, USA. I think we only used 2 tree mics.


----------



## robgb (May 17, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Let's say someone today composes a theme like Mozart piano concerto no 21 mvt 2 andante, and presents it to a community of professional musicians (composers, orchestras, academia, publishers etc). How do you think they would react to it? Or how would you react? Seems simple right!? And after all the music history people might expect some elaborated harmony? Would such composer be ridiculed today?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll start, I only value music by how it speaks to me, not by complexity



I couldn't care less about how a community of musicians react to my music. I don't write it for them. I write it for me.


----------



## BlackDorito (May 17, 2021)

Rodney Money said:


> I am getting the commissions instead because my little pieces have a somewhat “meaning” behind them


This reminds me of what I suppose every arranger/composer of "church music" eventually discovers - you need to change your focus from "everyone's gonna love my awesome arrangement" to "what can I produce that is simple to perform and communicates well".


----------



## Double Helix (May 17, 2021)

robgb said:


> I couldn't care less about how a community of musicians react to my music. I don't write it for them. I write it for me.


^^this^^
The title of the thread -- "afraid" (?)

"Worry is the misuse of imagination" (Mary Crowley)


----------



## RogiervG (May 17, 2021)

my music is simple or complex depending how you interpreted it when listening.
and i am not afraid to compose, i dont think simple or complex, i think music


----------



## Rodney Money (May 17, 2021)

BlackDorito said:


> This reminds me of what I suppose every arranger/composer of "church music" eventually discovers - you need to change your focus from "everyone's gonna love my awesome arrangement" to "what can I produce that is simple to perform and communicates well".


Amen.


----------

