# Polytonals, quartals: on extinction?



## lux (Apr 24, 2008)

I'm recently relistening some cool stuff like Elmer Bernstein Great Escape score (probably my favourite one) and some others of the same age.

I'm amazed of how cinematic their usage (often simple) of superimposed tonals, poly chords and quartal harmonies could be. The sense of motion/uncertain really helped the scene. 

It reminds me a bit of some Spielberg signature polyvalent visuals, where you are supposed to concentrate on the part of the screen you prefer on a same scene. 

Its kinda missing a bit on recent stuff i've heard, probably considered "old school".

Is it just an impression?

Luca


----------



## David A (Apr 24, 2008)

Horror movies have plenty of polytonality.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Apr 24, 2008)

These were the golden years of film scores.

I agree with you, as a whole, scores are a lot less daring nowadays...but then, this is also true about the whole music world (in general)


----------



## nikolas (Apr 24, 2008)

I don't know if the era is past, or if simply todays composers are too influenced by people like Zimmer and Elfman, who don't use such techniques! 

Williams very well knows quartal harmony as well as polytonal/bitonal chords and harmony and he does apply it from time to time, but the rest...

I would assume, without knowing better of course, only due to the output of the above two composers (Zimmer and Elfman) that they simply don't know, but for the rest I've no idea really!

____________

I would also agree with Patrick, although I can see certain daring in the rock/pop world today (NIN, Radiohead, dEUS for example). But film music, not exaclty. Computer game music is also heavily going to the direction of films, with only some very sparse (but amazing) exceptions such as Bioshock (the soundtrack should still be available online and for free, which includes thick textures, clusters, pendereskian movements in strings, etc).


----------



## synthetic (Apr 24, 2008)

A lot of horror scores do this. I have some Christopher Young scores with a lot of sound mass techniques. He's a big fan of the Polish 20th century composers like Pendereski and Ligeti. For example, "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" has a very long cue that uses these techniques (the Exorcism).


----------



## rJames (Apr 24, 2008)

The more "real world" music I study; vs EIS, the more I realize that the current mode is to allow more room for the viewer to make up the emotion.

There is a Philip Glass documentary airing somewhere (HBO?) ...actually, I think it was a trailer for a theatrical release.

The big name directors were oohing and ahhing about how his music was perfectly suited for filmscore. And if you remember Koyaniscatsi (sp), it was (to me) revolutionary in its ambiguity and impressionistic sensibility. It was awe-full.

There is some of this simplicity and repetitiveness in a Zimmer score.

I think, today, the filmmakers are in love with this impressionism.

Polytonality gives you that sense with blantant ambiguity. But this post-Glass ambiguity is the current flavor.


----------



## lux (Apr 24, 2008)

I have to say that I just partly agree with this horror thing. 

I'm expecially referring to the descriptive potential of polytonality(i think for purists this is not an exact definition, but i havent different english words for it) or harmonic ambiguities like the quartals. Horror uses the "disturbing" potential of dissonance. I think this is pretty different and, in my vision, earns less honour to this second usage.

The use of dissonance in horror has the historical role of increasing disturbing sensations in the viewer offering a support to the images. 

Using creatively this potential is another thing in my own vision.

The whole Jaws score is full of examples. The first that comes in mind are few seconds of music on the scene that comes when the engine of the boat explodes and the guys are falling down to the sea. The composer describes the drama with strings and at the same time he has fun of the Captain Quint who have loosen his head using the notes of a funny diatonic traditional melody out of context. Both thing do happen at the same moment musically. JW uses the out to the sea allegro theme opposed to low register on several parts of the score with the same scope.

The whoile Great Escape score is also fullfilled by examples on this matter. Some characters on the movie have an overall smart and funny appeal, the composer often underlines it but at the same time keeps people warned that they are in a nazi camp, so nothing to have fun about. Bernstein does it in a simple, subtle and at the same time extremely descriptive way, from my point of view.

Yeah, perhaps "blatant" examples, but probably clear enough to explain my idea. Sorry for my terrible usage of english.

Luca


----------



## rJames (Apr 24, 2008)

Luca,
You have a great command of our language.

Look how much miscommunication we have here at VI even when we have the same native tongue!


----------



## almacg (Apr 24, 2008)

I think it's safe to assume that todays musical world is in dire straights. One the one hand there are composers such as Boulez, Messaien etc, who right strictly on an intellectual basis, aiming only to write something complex, and not necassarily of any musical merit whatsoever. On the other hand, we have the Zimmer's and Elfman's who have become so infatuated with simplicity that their work is utterly average and unadventurous. 

To make matters even worse, a part of the musical/art world has become so utterly liberal and pretentious, that noise is often considered as music. People with no musical ability (think John Cage) are actually encouraged in today's musical society. I think a great number of people have lost the ability to differentiate between messing around and music.

And back on topic...  Polytonals and quartals aren't extinct as a result that we have discovered something better, but simply because most the people at the top of the music chain are utterly incompetent! Hopefully we can move on from this age of the 'electronic soundscape', the 'mediocre' and the 'non-musical revolution', and start writing competent orchestral music.

To sum up, people like Boulez, Cage, and Zimmer and Glass represent the decline of music into a hitherto unseen world, where pretty much anything goes. Now I have no problem with aspiring composers producing sub-par work, (if I thought I my work was perfect I'd be completely insane!), but the people at the top should only be there because they are the best!


----------



## nikolas (Apr 24, 2008)

almacg @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> I think it's safe to assume that todays musical world is in dire straights. One the one hand there are composers such as Boulez, Messaien etc, who right strictly on an intellectual basis, aiming only to write something complex, and not necassarily of any musical merit whatsoever. On the other hand, we have the Zimmer's and Elfman's who have become so infatuated with simplicity that their work is utterly average and unadventurous.
> 
> To make matters even worse, a part of the musical/art world has become so utterly liberal and pretentious, that noise is often considered as music. People with no musical ability (think John Cage) are actually encouraged in today's musical society. I think a great number of people have lost the ability to differentiate between messing around and music.


While I think I understand what you mean, most names you mention regarding contempoary music have nothing to do with what you describe! 

Have you even heard Messiaens works, or you just think he's an intellectual bitch of some sort? Or that he only writes complex music?!?!?

Are you sure that you are not confusing John with Nicolas Cage and claim that he doesn't have any musical ability?!?!?!

And are you sure that Zimmer and Elfman are utterly average (unadventurous I can understand up to a point)?

I find your post rather insulting towards most names you mention, and I would assume (<-a simple assumption), that you've not done enough studying/reading/listening on the mention composers, in order to judge them like that, I'm sorry to say!


----------



## rJames (Apr 24, 2008)

nikolas @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> I find your post rather insulting towards most names you mention, and I would assume (<-a simple assumption), that you've not done enough studying/reading/listening on the mention composers, in order to judge them like that, I'm sorry to say!



Why do we say stuff like this in this forum?

Come on guys. Seems like every post has to have an all or nothing debate these days.

Please don't personally insult someone cause they don't agree with you.


(see what I mean, Luca?)


----------



## nikolas (Apr 24, 2008)

No insult taken there, for me. I don't mind and I'm sure no Zimmer, boulez or Elfman mind either! :D And I'm actually not sure if the quote is insulting to almacg. I mean it as a question (a challenging one, yes), but a question. I won't mind a reply like "yes I've heard many stuff from the x composer and I find that he's a pretentious prick!". But if he hasn't then... :-/

I just found the above posters claims a bit too much, so I challenged what he said in a... challenging way. The above poster decided to post an opinion on some of the greatest names in music and pretty much decide that all of them are not good enough (if I read his post correctly). I strongly dissagree with that, and I'm trying to see if indeed he knows what he's talking about, or not.

Again, I do know what he means, had he taken the names he uses out! I mean, of course there are composers who write too... intellectual music! And there are composers who write too simple music. And there are composers who seem to not posses much musical merit. I just dissagree with the examples he decided to give (mostly about Messiaen actually).

I'm Greek, so language could also be an issue there. 

If the quote seems harsh I can change it (the whole post rather) to a less challenging one:

"almacg: I personally find that I dissagree with the examples you give, about composers. I find that Messiaen (especially), but also Boulez have great musicality in their works (not everything), that Cage has musicality and that Elfman and Zimmer can also be somewhat more complicated, especially Elfman being with Tim Burton for so long, he's made a very precise style for himself, which at first it could be said that it is adventurous.

I'm wondering what have you heard from Boulez, Cage and Messiaen in order to come to those conclusions, if I may?"

This is the full meaning I think, but far less challenging! It's just that when I see people and posts that do seem so sure about something, I get a trigger, a button to "on" and start posting more aggressively than I should probably...


----------



## StrangeCat (Apr 24, 2008)

I totally agree with Patrick de Caumette and almacg. And Patrick you have one cool ass name!
The fact that people even make a big deal about Quartal harmony or Polytonality says a lot about the music being composed for the main media in the US now a days. 

but who gives a F#$%#$ about the US and music. Seriously there is whole world out there and different styles of music being more flexible. Right now there so many damn film festivals going on all over. 

I sometimes come on this forum read up lurk but you guyz are like broken records you talk about the same film composers again and again. Truly you wish for Hollywood and the 100,000 dollars it takes to set up an orchestra recording for your music too.


----------



## StrangeCat (Apr 24, 2008)

because I was an idiot and wasted my time replying to this stupid thread(face palm)

http://www.musicfromthemovies.com/review.asp?ID=7188

later


----------



## poseur (Apr 24, 2008)

almacg @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> I think it's safe to assume that todays musical world is in dire straights.


huh.
completely disagree.
utterly.
and, there certainly is no "top" of a presumed "musical food-chain";
to think so (and state so) says more about the sayer's
view of himself-in-relation-to-the-big-scary-world than
it does of anything else.

remaining continuously & actually productive works a whole lot better for me
than does miring myself in the bog of self-referentially addictive intellectualising & critical comparisonising.

i employ bitonality, polytonality, etc in my scores,
where it feels that it will serve & further the purpose & intention of the film.

listen to Part, Mansurian, Poulenc, Francaix much?
Reich? Adams? Gress? Berne? AACM? Newman? Mansell? Adams?
Courvoisier? Branca? Alarm Will Sound? Cecil Taylor? Anti-Pop Consortium? Riley? Hassell? Trio Di Clarone? etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

there's a broad, broad & GREAT world of unbelievable music out there,
really:
people making music, people who've absorbed &
utilise --- in some cases, consciously --- techniques developed and codified over a great many years, from many different perspectives & geo-locations..... not dispensing with the variety of semi-mysterious interior landscapes from which we come, and which are so critical
to the creation of music.
anyways.
don't fret about it;
keep making music for yourself, for us..... even if we don't 
"appreciate" it..... yet.

honestly sorry if it sounds ranty;
it's a sore (and regular) subject for me,
here on the semi-random internet.

d


----------



## poseur (Apr 24, 2008)

almacg @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> To sum up, people like Boulez, Cage, and Zimmer and Glass represent the decline of music into a hitherto unseen world, where pretty much anything goes. Now I have no problem with aspiring composers producing sub-par work, (if I thought I my work was perfect I'd be completely insane!), but the people at the top should only be there because they are the best!


as well as there not being "at the top"
(unless ye think only in terms of financial and/or popular "success",
in which case you're likely to have quite a bloody shock
sometime during hte course of attempting to create a life IN music), there is no "best".
there has been no "decline", only quite lot of music
that you haven't heard.
none of us could gauge the depth of the ocean
with only a yardstick to hand, eh?
best,
d


----------



## rJames (Apr 24, 2008)

Nicolas, you challenged me to go to YouTube and hear some Messiaen and Boulez.

I like 'em both. And would be happy to explore music like either. I think we lose sight that music before Stravinsky was different too.

We need change.

Had to laugh when I found a videotaped for British TV performance of 4'33" or whatever its called. Here I am with almacg.

I love that they got an audience into that theater and paid those musicians for the orchestral performance. "I've got a bridge I'd like to sell some of that audience."

I wonder what its like to hear air conditioning and breathing and rustling noises in a room full of expensive and delicate noise producing hardware. Wow, to be there!!!

He may have tons of musical talent, but I couldn't find it at YouTube. Artistic, yes, challenging our minds, yes.

Anyway, sorry to pick on you nicolas, I agree with your premise, to a great degree, but wish that everyone here at Vi would refrain from telling people they are stupid or need "education."


----------



## poseur (Apr 24, 2008)

more listening suggestions,
'cuz i'm fired-up & am away from the writing-desk
and studios for a little while:
Hindemith
Hovahness
Harrison
Newman (T)
Desplat
Nancarrow
Squarepusher
Aphex Twin
Lightning Bolt
The Battles
Radiohead
Sigur Ros
Rinde Eckert
Django Bates
ELLINGTON!
STRAYHORN!
MINGUS!
BERNSTEIN (L)!
Burwell
Yoshihiro Hanno
Takemitsu
Sakamoto

yes, i could do this for days on end..... but
will spare y'all.....

d


----------



## nikolas (Apr 25, 2008)

rJames @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Had to laugh when I found a videotaped for British TV performance of 4'33" or whatever its called. Here I am with almacg.


Fair enouh here!  No probs! And I agree (especially to the Barbican with a whole orchestra!)

If you have another few minutes, try and listening to a sonata from Cage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYsx5Di3bso Tell me that this doesn't remind you of loops and electronica.  Not everything he's done is "musical", by all means, but he has musicality when he uses it! :D

If you listened to Messiaen (where it is more evident), less to Boulez, do you agree that they are not stricly intellectual? And, again, I can understand it about Boulez, but not Messiaen! (for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XO5lxWBY74 ! I can't hear anythint but beauty, even if he didn't go random on the piano and he did design certain things and he uses modes and stuff, etc)



rJames @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Anyway, sorry to pick on you nicolas, I agree with your premise, to a great degree, but wish that everyone here at Vi would refrain from telling people they are stupid or need "education."


Indeed you are right (not sure about the great degree and stuff), but I was being off the line and thus apologise!


----------



## almacg (Apr 25, 2008)

OK I admit I probably havn't listened to enough Messaien to make a fair judgement of him! I'm listening to Louange à l'Éternite de Jésus, and it's ok.. But it's nothing like the other pieces I've heard him write that sound a bit wierd to be honest. It would be great if you could give me some examples of his work, but stick to the less crazy ones please!
With Boulez, all you need to do is listen to this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBhXrFp0AXE 
Now you have to ask yourself, how much musical talent did it take to write this? Even a 'simple' piece like 'Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies' while strictly tonal and some would argue simplistic, takes a considerable amount of talent (some would say genius) to compose. Whereas, this piece by Boulez could have been written by a tone-deaf person.

And Elfman, ok the first Batman score is one of my favourites, I just think he went downhill from there. (Away from romanticism)
Zimmer and co. - by now it's probably a cliché to have a go at him so I'll keep it short. I think his style has led to some interesting results, there have been others who have adopted this idiom to a degree of success, but I just tòº:   S¤_º:   S¤`º:   S¤aº:   S¤bº:   S¤cº:   S¤dº:   S¤eº:   S¤fº:   S¤gº:   S¤hº:   S¤iº:   S¤jº:   S¤kº:   S¤lº:   S¤mº:   S¤nº:   S¤oº:   S¤pº:   S¤qº:   S¤rº:   S¤sº:   S¤tº:   S¤uº:   S¤vº:   S¤wº:   S¤xº:   S¤yº:   S¤zº:   S¤{º:   S¤|º:   S¤}º:   S¤~º:   S¤º:   S¤€º:   S¤º:   S¤‚º:   S¤ƒº:   S¤„º:   S¤…º:   S¤†º:   S¤‡º:   S¤ˆº:   S¤‰º:   S¤Šº:   S¤‹º:   S¤Œº:   S¤º:   S¤Žº:   S¤º:   S¤º:   S¤‘º:   S¤’º:   S¤“º:   S¤”º:   S¤•º:   S¤–º:   S¤—º:   S¤˜º:   S¤™º:   S¤šº:   S¤›º:   S¤œº:   S¤º:   S¤žº:   S¤Ÿº:   S¤ º:   S¤¡º:   S¤¢º:   S¤£º:   S¤¤º:   S¤¥º:   S¤¦º:   S¤§º:   S¤¨º:   S¤©º:   S¤ªº:   S¤«º:   S¤¬º:   S¤­º:   S¤®º:   S¤¯º:   S¤°º:   S¤±º:   S¤²º:   S¤³º;   S¤´º;   S¤µº;   S¤¶º;   S¤·º;   S¤¸º;   S¤¹º;   S¤ºº;   S¤»º;   S¤¼º;   S¤½º;   S¤¾º;   S¤¿º;   S¤Àº;   S¤Áº;   S¤Âº;   S¤Ãº;   S¤Äº;   S¤Åº;   S¤Æº;   S¤Çº;   S¤Èº;   S¤Éº;   S¤Êº;   S¤Ëº;   S¤Ìº;   S¤Íº;   S¤Î              òº;   S¤Ðº;   S¤Ñº;   S¤Òº;   S¤Óº;   S¤Ôº;   S¤Õº;   S¤Öº;   S¤×º;   S¤Øº;   S¤Ùº;   S¤Úº;   S¤Ûº;   S¤Üº;   S¤Ýº;   S¤Þº;   S¤ßº;   S¤àº;   S¤áº;   S¤âº;   S¤ãº;   S¤äº;   S¤åº;   S¤æº;   S¤çº;   S¤èº;   S¤éº;   S¤êº;   S¤ëº;   S¤ìº;   S¤íº;   S¤îº;   S¤ïº;   S¤ðº;   S¤ñº;   S¤òº;   S¤óº;   S¤ôº;   S¤õº;   S¦º;   S¦‘º;   S¦’º;   S¦“º;   S¦”º;   S¦•º;   S¦–º;   S¦—º;   S¦˜º;   S¦™º;   S¦šº;   S¦›º;   S¦œº;   S¦º;   S¦žº;   S¦Ÿº;   S¦ º;   S¦¡º<   S¤öº<   S¤÷º<   S¤øº<   S¤ùº<   S¤úº<   S¤ûº<   S¤üº<   S¤ýº<   S¤þº<   S¤ÿº<   S¥


----------



## lux (Apr 25, 2008)

I'm not sure how much Cage or Philip Glass have to do with the less usage of some expressive forms (thats how i would define the creative usage of polytonality and quartals, just as examples) so used...i would say....until the end of the eighties.

Probably Zimmer counts though. He counts because in my vision he's the author of the score  that, for me, made a big change, a lot more than every minimalistic or material music attempts.

The Gladiator.

I think the Gladiator changed really a lot because intruduced with such massive results the concept of indipendence between the screen and the music. It also demonstrated that a score could be sold as it was mainstream pop.

I really think Zimmer's music works totally indipendent from the movie(s). It sets a mood. One. Then works as a pop song straight to the end. No matter whats happening. Everything that happens in 10 minutes of movie is set musically as a single mood. Revolutionary. And i'm not being hironical. I like some of it and dislike something else of it. But still have to admit that has been revolutionary.

I strongly disagree here with those that so often affirms that old school music wasnt set to work with the movie but to work itself. I really think this is today's story. Indipendence.

Why the hell would u use crossing melodies on different tonalities if youre just setting a mood?

Simplicistic perhaps, but thats it.


----------



## nikolas (Apr 25, 2008)

almacq: I'm seriously lacking time right now, so a few links and I'll come back for more discussion. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67YkOWJNA
(notice the theme, and while it is dissonant at places, it's highly happy go-go, isn't it?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMAIag5IPDg
(a bit more dissonant, but notice the sheer drive and the repeated notes everywhere (which are part of his theme (the very first bar)).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht5qqE_e1UE
(I admit even more dissonant and strange. BTW that is Boulez conducting! :D But try to imagine some birds around. Close your eyes, forget eveyrthing and see if you can imagine birds... Messiaen did extensive research on ornithology, etc)

I do understand what you're saying about Boulez and especially Cage, I just wish you wouldn't use such harsh expressions, that's all. 

Just a small note: Audience can also be "trained", and learn to like different things over time. Sure, you can't get a kid to enjoy Messiaen immediately, it takes practice. Same happens with Boulez and other composers. (BTW, did you see the link about Cage in my above post?)


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 25, 2008)

Don't spare us too much, d... I like your suggestions! =o


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 25, 2008)

rJames @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> Had to laugh when I found a videotaped for British TV performance of 4'33" or whatever its called. Here I am with almacg.
> 
> I love that they got an audience into that theater and paid those musicians for the orchestral performance. "I've got a bridge I'd like to sell some of that audience."
> 
> ...



Every time I see this kind of talk, it really makes me sad.

John Cage asked us to break boundaries. He raised questions that still don't have answers. I guess, as in all things, that an artist's contribution begins to be taken for granted when his techniques become so mainstream that people forget that they were once revolutionary.

Music is about much more than being "skillful." As is talent.

I play with an improvisational group called BL Lacerta. It has been in continuous existence since 1976 (I first saw the group in 1977, and joined in the early 90's). Among other prized possessions in our archives, we have a piece John Cage wrote for us. Two years ago, we played it for the first time since the premeire, and it was an amazing experience.

As I was saying earlier, there are hundreds of scores, maybe thousands, that today use the alternate notational and conceptual techniques that John Cage pioneered...and with varying degrees of skill.

When you actually, seriously play a piece like this, with musicians who are deeply skilled, it is a revelation. The attitude I see here is belittling, as if it's some kind of joke to take on proper playing of a conceptual piece. Nothing is more opposite the truth. As a performer, you are responsible to bring your highest creative power to every second of a performance, no matter what the material.

This particular Cage piece (the one written for BL Lacerta) involves very precisely timed musical events, some informally described, some notated, some drawn graphically. The way the parts interlock, and the colors and instrument classes are juxtaposed is just as legitimately "composing" as anything else. They are as hard, if not much harder, to play as anything else. You have only your own performance to judge. You have only your own integrity to draw upon. In the end, you've either succeeded or failed.

I can tell you from personal experience as a performer of works by Cage, Stockhausen, Varese, and others in this genre, that the level of concentration and musicianship is no less critical. And the works, properly played, are not just collections of noise, but critically comparable performances.

It is very easy to make some off the cuff joke about 4'33". Haha, very original, never heard that one before.

I don't mean to attack personally here, and that is not my intent. My intent is to say that this kind of dismissal of serious work, serious art, and serious musicianship completely discounts the basis of a huge and continuing artistic tradition.

We can debate whether the gathering of people and a musician, and the emotional/intellectual impacts and questions raised in the original idea of 4'33" represent music, or performance art, or some combination thereof. And in doing so, we find that there is a deep and continuing mystery and a VERY central theme creating those questions.

In fact, you wrote about it. Today. What you wrote is dismissive. But you wrote. I responded. Others responded. Can you remember a single theme from the last twenty film trailers you saw? Did you discuss their artistic merits (beyond, "what library are they using for that boomy sound?)?

That answer is probably no, if you're honest. Yet here we are talking about John Cage.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 25, 2008)

almacg @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> OK I admit I probably havn't listened to enough Messaien to make a fair judgement of him! I'm listening to Louange à l'Éternite de Jésus, and it's ok.. But it's nothing like the other pieces I've heard him write that sound a bit wierd to be honest. It would be great if you could give me some examples of his work, but stick to the less crazy ones please!
> With Boulez, all you need to do is listen to this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBhXrFp0AXE
> Now you have to ask yourself, how much musical talent did it take to write this? Even a 'simple' piece like 'Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies' while strictly tonal and some would argue simplistic, takes a considerable amount of talent (some would say genius) to compose. Whereas, this piece by Boulez could have been written by a tone-deaf person.
> 
> ...



But what you should try to understand, if you are actually interested in becoming an artist, is that what you are saying is more about you.


----------



## careyford (Apr 25, 2008)

If something sounds incomprehensible to you or if you don't know why something is "historically significant" that is a clue that a whole new area of exploration and learning has become available to you.  Bruce's points are dead on. And if you have the opportunity to go and really listen to 4'33" or a piece like Riley's "In C", well, they're actually pretty amazing. Just go somewhere full of people and listen for the music in their movements and conversation and noises. 

Also, harmonically or texturally simple music is not the easiest music to write well. Sounding simple is often deceptively challenging. :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 25, 2008)

" don't know if the era is past, or if simply todays composers are too influenced by people like Zimmer and Elfman, who don't use such techniques!"

I see a major difference between Zimmer and Elfman, first of all. But I also want to point out that polytonality is absolutely not just a horror movie effect, nor is it way out there - every composition student who reads Pesichetti encounters it.

If you listen to anything Stravinsky wrote you're bound to hear some of it, and it's often quite beautiful - i.e. not at all clichéd horror music.

Quartal harmony has been water under the bridge since the fusion era. I'm sure Elfman and Zimmer have both used it, whether or not that's what they were thinking at the time.


----------



## nikolas (Apr 25, 2008)

Nick: No, they are not the same, they just don't use such techniques, that's all!  Of course they are not the same!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 25, 2008)

They may not use them as official techniques, but I bet if you listened to all their scores you'd find passages with quartal harmony. You might even find Elfman passages in two different keys.


----------



## nikolas (Apr 25, 2008)

Fair enough, of course I've not heard everything by them, but I have heard from Elfman plenty of things (and I enjoy them, mind you, VERY much). Batman and Batman returns, Scissorhands, Sleepy hollow, and every other movie that Tim Burton has done. I mean, I'm not authority to what they've both written, but from the output and the things I've heard and seen, I'm not sure if they do use the particular techniques, or they stick to other things they know best and is their signature sound...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Apr 25, 2008)

Even though it is less the case nowadays, Elfman has been using talented orchestrators throughout his career so you can expect to hear some cool devices within the orchestrations. Not necesarily coming from Elfman but approved by him anyway.
Scott Smalley was telling me that Elfman is very smart ans that he cinstantly applied himself to learn the craft of orchestration. So, when you work with top-notch musicians, a lot of knowledge gets passed on as well.

Re: Messiaen. We are not talking about a schmock here. He is one of the great minds of the 20th century.
Some of his music may be difficult to assimilate but try listening to Quartet for the end of Time: it may be more approchable.

I have a suggestion to make, especially for those that do not totally know the music of the 20th century, where most of the techniques we are discussing were introduced (and for everyone else too):
buy "The rest is noise" by Alex Roth
It is a great. entertaining read and it will help you understand why people like Boulez, Cage, Messiaen, Glass came about within the context of the 20th century music development. Whether you like them or not, they were relevent nonetheless...

But as someone mentionned, this was then. How about now?
Poseur is right, there are certainly some great composers out there, unknow, unpromoted, but it is certainly a lot harder to hear them when the rest of the planet is tuned to ...#$%^

Time for a revolution


----------



## nikolas (Apr 25, 2008)

Just a small note: I like Elfman, I like his works, I own a couple of his CDs, I enjoy what he does in music, don't get me wrong! 

Other than that I agree with Patrick above!


----------



## poseur (Apr 25, 2008)

lux @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> In general I still think you cant put Elfman as a reason for not using some harmonic or compositional creativity today.


add to which:
his success was CERTAINLY not won as an aggressively pointed & conscious device
directly intended to destroy serialism, polytonalism, minimalism, etc.
i mean, PUHLEEEEEZ.....

(should i blame Britney Spears for the fact that some here are unfamiliar with the work of Tigran Mansurian? but that would be ridiculous, no? unless, of course, one has not enough interest in and "time for" music to educate oneself, musically speaking, beyond what the whack of popular media succeeds in forcibly serving us eighteen gazillion times per hour.....)

it is, indeed, up to composers to decide for their own selves what they deem worthy of writing,
and what they deem worthy of offering to the world..... and they needs produce that work.

if the nature of this style of scream-in-yer-beer (or, -wine, or -whatever) criticism
(ie: ¿¿¿ "THEY ruined it for EVERYBODY, mommy!" ???)
is somehow meant to be "constructive"
(though this appears to me to be done in a rather dubious way),
then i strongly suggest one might attempt to transform & apply the energies inherent to that style o'criticism immediately & most pointedly to one's own work, to one's own output;
one might maybe could find such an approach becoming
actually & progressively more beneficial to the work with which one actually proceeds.

criticism is functional, has meaning;
but, like art & music:
some presentations do have both meaning & function,
other presentations are "criticism" in name, only,
serving no further purpose than
very basic individually emotional, psychological & commercial agendae.
huh.
d


----------



## rJames (Apr 25, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> It is very easy to make some off the cuff joke about 4'33". Haha, very original, never heard that one before.



Ah ha...so you admit that lots of people joke about the concept of silence as music.

I rest my case.

Seriously, I don't pretend to know ANYTHING about music history. That is my artistic place. 

I am only judging it from a personal level. And not actually judging the first performance but this "symphonic" presentation.

Is someone important because we talk about them or do we talk about them because they are important?


----------



## poseur (Apr 25, 2008)

rJames @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Bruce Richardson @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> > Is someone important because we talk about them or do we talk about them because they are important?


..... and that was one of the many artistic, cultural & sociological questions brought into the public purview
as a direct "artistic" result of said piece,
which, NB:
you (and me, and many, many others)
are still discussing since its debut in 1952.
1952.
just a thought, there; nothing more.
the broader view of the "case" appears to remain "un-rested".
d


----------



## rJames (Apr 25, 2008)

poseur @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> rJames @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> > Is someone important because we talk about them or do we talk about them because they are important?
> ...



I wonder if that was on the minds of the audience as they lined up to buy tickets for the symphonic performance?


----------



## poseur (Apr 25, 2008)

rJames @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> poseur @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> > rJames @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> ...


..... and so, you're more living proof that, 
some 56 yrs later,
mr. cage did, indeed, achieve at least one of his artistic & commentarial goals..... no?

still, why wonder at all?,
though it does introduce a series of following questions
most basic to composers & performers:
is it the responsibility of the composer to merely satisfy
the current whims and expectations of an audience?

does music have something to "say" to us, beyond
the sometimes unreachable & collusive consensual "agreements" often unwittingly proffered by the entrenchment of formalisms quietly deemed acceptable by audiences, critics..... and the world of musicians?

etc etc etc

while there are certainly no direct musical parallels intended, here,
one might refer quickly to & compare such ideas,
re: John Cage,
to the introduction of new music by Igor Stravinsky, Ornette Coleman, Samuel Barber, etc etc etc etc..... events presenting works that people still discuss, today,
which have by now been absorbed by an unconsciously porous culture
and which have utterly affected the general making-of-music
both slowly & broadly across many, many years.
i think.

d


----------



## rJames (Apr 25, 2008)

poseur @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> rJames @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> > poseur @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> ...



John Cage did indeed fulfill his goal. I was wondering about the audience. Look carefully at our entire sub-thread.

Maybe this answers the question, "What is art?" I think art can be defined as, What your friends say is art."



> while there are certainly no direct musical parallels intended, here,
> one might refer quickly to & compare such ideas,
> re: John Cage,
> to the introduction of new music by Igor Stravinsky, Ornette Coleman, Samuel Barber, etc etc etc etc..... events presenting works that people still discuss, today,
> ...



The copyright infringements have begun. “One Minute Silence (after Cage)”

I am currently studying the style (as I sleep). But my wife has compained as she sometimes wakes up at night and can't get back to sleep for my constant practice.


----------



## rJames (Apr 25, 2008)

I just realized how to tie this back into Luca's thread.

Maybe film composers should be looking to emulate Cage's contribution by using more silence in their scores.


----------



## nikolas (Apr 25, 2008)

I'm wondering if this is an issue for the composer, or the director or even worst the producer to take care of.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 25, 2008)

rJames @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> poseur @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> > rJames @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> ...



Are you kidding? Think about going from that point forward in your life, knowing that you were the first audience to perform 4'33"

Those people, in that audience, participated in one of the most controversial and discussed artistic events of a century.

Anyone who was fortunate to have been present for that event purchased their place into history for the price of a concert ticket.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 25, 2008)

rJames @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> I don't pretend to know ANYTHING about music history. That is my artistic place.



~o)


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 25, 2008)

rJames @ Fri Apr 25 said:


> Bruce Richardson @ Fri Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> > It is very easy to make some off the cuff joke about 4'33". Haha, very original, never heard that one before.
> ...



But there is the entire essence of the piece in a nutshell. It wasn't silence. Silence exists only in a region of the universe in which we cannot live. Even in a space suit, we cannot experience silence. It is an illusion.

Even if we jabbed ice picks through our hearing mechanisms, would we then "hear" silence? Or would we realize that our minds would fill the emptiness, therefore, robbing us of the experience of silence?

There is a room here in Dallas, in a post-production house located near railroad tracks, that was soundproofed and isolated sufficiently to withstand the vibrations of trains passing less than 100 feet from the room.

Entering that room, once the door is closed, is unsettling. The silence is like a death of sorts. Until you begin to "hear." You hear your breathing first, then your heartbeat. It's the loudest thing in the room, until it's punctuated by the almost deafening sound of your stomach or other internal squishy guts settling in some way. The breathing becomes as loud as a log sawed. Once you're accustomed to the room, you hear another sound alongside your heartbeat, the more elastic rhythmic sound of your blood pulsing, in your "ears," therefore exciting your hearing mechanism.

Only death brings silence. Maybe.

John Cage had a lot to say.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 25, 2008)

almacg @ Thu Apr 24 said:


> To sum up, people like Boulez, Cage, and Zimmer and Glass represent the decline of music into a hitherto unseen world, where pretty much anything goes. Now I have no problem with aspiring composers producing sub-par work, (if I thought I my work was perfect I'd be completely insane!), but the people at the top should only be there because they are the best!



I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. You've lumped four composers who could easily represent north, south, east, and west, given their very different directions. So, taking you at your word, it's about quality to you.

Let's strike Boulez and Cage for being "weird" (your word, not mine). Let's strike Zimmer because he seems the odd man out here.

That leaves Philip Glass, and I wonder what your take is on him. I find him a compelling and skillful artist. The last performance of his I saw was a live filmscore, "The Beauty and the Beast," and it was beautifully done.

Keeping in the film world (leaving the iconic ones behind for a moment), you cannot argue with the scene in "The Truman Show," where Ed Harris's character is watching Truman sleep, in the control room, and we get a cameo of Philip Glass playing the keyboard (performing the "score" of both the depicted _Truman Show_, and the film itself). It's a genuine moment, a mirror held up to a mirror, held up to a mirror.

One of his lesser known albums that I find moving is "The Photographer." One hour of anticipation leading to a single "click." It is a wonderful dance about architecture.

I keep coming back to my fortune cookie...Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade.

The trade can never be narrowed. Yes, we're composers. Yes we're musicians. But first, one must be an artist in the broadest sense of the word. Oscar Wilde once said "Actors are the opposite of people." I like to paraphrase that to "Artists are the opposite of people."

Poseur brings up a favorite question of mine, essentially, where do our responsibilities lie as artists? To ourselves? To the world? To the art? To the audience? The consumer? God?

Do we have a responsibility at all?

Don't misunderstand the world. This is all simple thermodynamics, entropy, the dissolution of everything into ever smaller particles, which themselves will dissolve. Until whatever started this party declares last call, we're stuck pondering the fact that somehow life is this pesky anomaly. In my personal system, art does in fact imitate life. It's an unlikely cluster of ideas and effort that refuses to politely dissolve.

Philip Glass has somehow created a large enough cluster of meaning to have driven your fingers to type the eleven characters signifying his essence.

Careful with that axe, Eugene.


----------



## rJames (Apr 25, 2008)

Some of what I've said is tongue-in-cheek but still somewhat serious.

The symphonic performance I was talking about was NOT the original performance, hence my sarcasm.

An artist's responsibility is to themselves. New question; what is self?

John Cage is not the only one with a lot to say.

(Bruce, please don't take me too seriously)

And it is true, I don't want to be overly influenced by filing my subconscious with other people's musical ideas. I think that is the main reason for mediocre music. We emulate an artist who is emulating an artist who is emulating an artist. I can't get away from the influences everyday life brings and I have to try to emulate other styles in order to get paid.

But I don't care to be a part of the stream, I want to be outside of it. Personal choice. Odd as it may seem to you.


----------



## almacg (Apr 26, 2008)

Whether or not we discuss something is not a measure of it's success. Historians still discuss the third reich.

For me personally 4'33'' is a waste of my time. Anybody who buys tickets to 4'33'' is misguided. Would you buy a novel filled with no words? Would you watch a film that simply had a blank screen for an hour? Other than to appear cultured what would you actually gain from such acts of plain lunacy?

4'33''. It might be trying to make a statement, that we should appreciate silence, and listen more to our surroundings, but I knew that already (except I can't actually hear silence due to having tinnitus). Apart from the statement which we've by now already had rammed down our throats enough times by 'intellectuals', what is there to gain? 

The whole dadaist movement was simply a way of getting attention! I can't paint, so I just sell my bed (thank you miss emin, no go away)! Look at me! I can't write a symphony so I write noise and call it music! I didn't think I'd find a single composer or artist who wasn't completely offended by any of this nonsense!

Put simply, if anyone can do it, it's not impressive! It takes a special kind of person to write a symphony, or to paint a beautiful picture, so why put people with this kind of ability in the same league as people who can't be bothered to own up to the fact that they actually suck! They should get real jobs!

No need to be offended by my remarks, but I find it utterly bemusing that there are actually talented people like yourselves out there who appreciate this stuff! Surely it simply belittles all the musical training and the natural given ability, that you are fortunate to have acquired!?


----------



## almacg (Apr 26, 2008)

Oh and Bruce, I wrote the above without reading your latest posts which are incredibly well crafted, and yes I do write a lot of broad sweeping statements which don't necassarily take everything on board, but it's impossible to know the entire history of music and therefore I readily accept the fact that the composers I mention below may have produced fantastic work that I have simply yet to hear!

In regards to Philip Glass, Koyanaatsqi did my head in. I don't want to listen to the same two arpeggios repeated over and over endlessly. I just don't really like the idea of pure simplicity triumphing over simplicity and complexity combined. So that's where Phillip Glass fits into my equation of a downward musical slope.

And Zimmer, like you said in another of your your posts, would be a much better composer if he had taken formal musical training. His work has contributed to the the marriage of commercial pop and orchestral music, which has led to an overall decrease in quality in film scores. When I hear his scores, I rarely enjoy the film I'm watching, because I disagree with his musical choices in every situation. It's obvious he has a good ear, he's creative, but he just isn't producing mature music like his predecessors.

Boulez represents the reduction of music from music, and the introduction of pretention and intellectualism in music. It's now possible for a tone deaf person to write 'good music'. There's no point in denying that 99% of Boulez fans only listen to his piano sonata no.1 simply for the fact that Boulez wrote it. Had it been written by someone who admitted to not being particularly musical, (and believe me it could easily have been) nobody would even give it a listen. When I listen to anything of this nature, it just saddens me; he's just making it easier for people with no clue to make music, and therefore lowering the standard as a whole.

Cage I spoke about before.

The classic example of how intellectualism can simply ruin music alltogether is Schoenberg himself. Verklarte Nacht, a tonal Mahler-esque piece written by his musical ear, not by some indeterminate deciding factor, is a masterpiece. Schoenbergs serialism while being incredibly important for the development of music as a whole (5 pieces inspired The Planets as an example), is indeterminate and therefore not even remotely valid as musical music in my opinion.

Despite the fact that many brilliant works have been produced in the last century, the overall result of the above composers and their contemparies is certianly negative. If Tracy Emin's bed is art, then so is the keyboard I'm using to type this post. If John Cage is a musical genius, then so is practically everybody on the planet.


----------



## Stephen W (Apr 26, 2008)

your film analogy works but your novel analogy does not (imho); although had you said a book of poetry...



almacg @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> For me personally 4'33'' is a waste of my time. Anybody who buys tickets to 4'33'' is misguided. Would you buy a novel filled with no words? Would you watch a film that simply had a blank screen for an hour? Other than to appear cultured what would you actually gain from such acts of plain lunacy?


----------



## poseur (Apr 26, 2008)

i'm not bruce, but, nonetheless:



almacg @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> Whether or not we discuss something is not a measure of it's success. Historians still discuss the third reich.


i somehow miss the logic in that analogy,
and its "conclusion".



almacg @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> 4'33''. It might be trying to make a statement, that we should appreciate silence, and listen more to our surroundings, but I knew that already (except I can't actually hear silence due to having tinnitus). Apart from the statement which we've by now already had rammed down our throats enough times by 'intellectuals', what is there to gain?


i would respectfully suggest, here,
that ya can't have it both ways:
while resorting to an "intellectual" (at best) exercise in the guise of passionate opinionising, ie:
this quasi-analytical, post-facto conversation about
music-in-general on the internet,
it appears unseemly (if not an actual conundrum) to be found descrying "intellectualism".

indeed:
apparently, you (_almost_ dismissively)
don't "enjoy" schoenberg's work
in/upon "serialism",
yet quietly admit to justifying its VALUE
to music, in general,
all the while, omitting acknowledgement of the 
tremendous musical effect he's had
upon the music, specifically, in films.....
so, whassup with that?
would there have been a bernard herrman,
without the influence of schoenberg, for ex.?



almacg @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> The whole dadaist movement was simply a way of getting attention! I can't paint, so I just sell my bed (thank you miss emin, no go away)! Look at me! I can't write a symphony so I write noise and call it music!


hmmmm.
not much comment from me, here, but to say:
clearly, not every composer is interested in
pursuing the goal of writing symphonies.
at this point in time, i presumed that would be self-evident?!?



almacg @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> Put simply, if anyone can do it, it's not impressive! It takes a special kind of person to write a symphony, or to paint a beautiful picture, so why put people with this kind of ability in the same league as people who can't be bothered to own up to the fact that they actually suck! They should get real jobs!


huh.
composing for film is, imo, a "real job",
albeit one i love.
indeed --- being a real musician, in any way,
is a "real job".

as well:
we seem to have differing views as to 
not merely what is "special", but also
in regards to music "of value":
what moves us.
in a variety of ways.

again, i strongly suggest the possibility of value
in attempting to transform & redirect your
potentially fatuous criticisms directly into/towards your own work;
this wouldn't devalue your opinions, at all,
but might simply offer more available energy to
your own creative efforts.




almacg @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> No need to be offended by my remarks, but I find it utterly bemusing that there are actually talented people like yourselves out there who appreciate this stuff! Surely it simply belittles all the musical training and the natural given ability, that you are fortunate to have acquired!?


interesting.
other than considering the vicissitudes of
a fickle & strange marketplace,
the value of bruce's work (or, your own, or etc)
is in both the process and the effect:
that's it!
process, effect.

the creative nature of bruce's work, imo,
is fed by his confidence in his own humility:
he remains OPEN enough to know that there's
more to know..... always.

fwiw:
while i disagree with the movements toawards industrialisation
seemingly effected by the creation of "music houses" centered around a single composer,
like Remote Control, etc
--- which, it should be CLEARLY noted, has been brought on in no small way by the communication of the "needs" of the film studios ---
i do consider hans z. a friend, & i
harbor only great respect for the absolute
dedication he brings, continuously,
to his often fantastic film-work.

back to topic, & fwiw:
i believe that there are, indeed, many examples of
the usages of polytonalism
(or, at very least, bitonalism)
to be gleaned from scores by carter burwell, thomas newman, howard shore, james horner, clint mansell, the RZA, abel korzeniowski, mychael danna, hans z., harry gregson-williams, etc etc etc.

d


----------



## almacg (Apr 26, 2008)

I just realised that one of my comments could easily be completely misconstrued, and therefore may seem incredibly offensive. 



> Put simply, if anyone can do it, it's not impressive! It takes a special kind of person to write a symphony, or to paint a beautiful picture, so why put people with this kind of ability in the same league as people who can't be bothered to own up to the fact that they actually suck! They should get real jobs!



When I said it takes a special kind of person to write a symphony, I was referring to the art of musical composition in general; symphony was merely an example. And 'the kind of people who can't be bothered to own up to the fact that they suck' was aimed at the proponents of Tracy Emin, John Cage etc. Musically speaking I believe John Cage does 'suck', and artistically Emin 'sucks'. I consider film composition as artistic as symphonic writing in many ways, I simply worded that paragraph badly.
Tracy Emin's bed is not as artistically viable as The Firebird for instance.

In regards to the analogy about the third reich, I simply wanted to convey the fairly obvious fact that being talked about is not necessarily an artistic complement. I accept I am talking about Cage right now, but not to praise his name.

With regards to serialism, I certainly do not enjoy it. I do however, believe that some works produced by twelve-tone technique inspired much greater and considerably more artistic work. Since twelve-tone music cannot be mentally conceived, (nobody can write it in their mind as with tonal music) I don't really consider it to be musically motivated. It's mathematical, but it isn't musical. 

Finally, I certainly do adopt an equally critical attitude in reference to my own work, which is why I'm not even 50% happy with anything I've written. I hope that one day I will be!


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 27, 2008)

I want to assure you that I can both fully understand your writing, and simultaneously find it offensive.



almacg @ Sat Apr 26 said:


> And 'the kind of people who can't be bothered to own up to the fact that they suck' was aimed at the proponents of Tracy Emin, John Cage etc. Musically speaking I believe John Cage does 'suck', and artistically Emin 'sucks'. I consider film composition as artistic as symphonic writing in many ways, I simply worded that paragraph badly.



Then I suppose I suck. Because about this time last year, I was fortunate to play two wonderful John Cage piece on a concert (especially gratifying since one of them was written specifically for our ensemble). And I think it was an amazing performance, which I enjoyed playing immensely, with some of my favorite musicians.

The other Cage piece on the program was _Music for Twelve Radios._

When it was over, and we were all packed away and enjoying a meal together afterwards, we had a wonderful conversation about how difficult _Radios_ was, compared to almost everything else on the program.

I am a skilled and experienced performer on a number of instruments, and I remember very clearly the exact places I made mistakes, and how it felt in performance. The sense of responsibility was even more profound, because after all, who in the audience besides me would know I'd played my part inaccurately at that point?

In that way, _Radios_ speaks very strongly to the musician. I remember that feeling of responsibility, so well, and how at that very moment I experienced an epiphany that would not have happened without this construct. What was revealed in our post-mortem talk was that everyone had experienced exactly the same set of thoughts at some time in the piece...the realization that we could just continue flipping pages and pretending to play the score, and that only an immensely studied observer in Cage's work would ever have known. And the simultaneous realization that _Radios_ is a piece about integrity.

When I read what you write about Cage, I try to understand how young you are as an artist by looking back at my own ideas at your age. And that's what makes me realize you need to wake up, and that perhaps I am one of the messengers whose responsibility it is to help tell you this.



> With regards to serialism, I certainly do not enjoy it. I do however, believe that some works produced by twelve-tone technique inspired much greater and considerably more artistic work. Since twelve-tone music cannot be mentally conceived, (nobody can write it in their mind as with tonal music) I don't really consider it to be musically motivated. It's mathematical, but it isn't musical.



There is much more to "mentally conceiving," as you put it, than "hearing things in your head."

Two artists creating a piece from the same array will produce completely different works. Those differences are musical.



> Finally, I certainly do adopt an equally critical attitude in reference to my own work, which is why I'm not even 50% happy with anything I've written. I hope that one day I will be!



But you don't, or you'd realize that having castigated Glass for "the same two arpeggios repeated over and over endlessly," you might have opened up the way for some ironic comment...which I'll spare you.



> Boulez represents the reduction of music from music, and the introduction of pretention and intellectualism in music. It's now possible for a tone deaf person to write 'good music'. There's no point in denying that 99% of Boulez fans only listen to his piano sonata no.1 simply for the fact that Boulez wrote it. Had it been written by someone who admitted to not being particularly musical, (and believe me it could easily have been) nobody would even give it a listen



Yes, and if my auntie had a pecker, she'd be my uncle.

You fail to even consider what is being said by the artists you deride, taking the opportunity once again to insult Boulez as merely "pretentious." So, anyone who approaches Boulez seriously is some sort of artistic rube, too naive to see what you can apparently judge without even having listened to most of the work (as of the beginning of this conversation, and re-admitted throughout)?

At this stage of your artistic development, you should be soaking up the world like a sponge right now. You need to assume that artists who have captured attention are ALL valid, and that it is your job as a fledgling artist to understand why.

You're fortunate to have people actually trying to talk to you and guide you. This conversation is continuing for your benefit.



> And Zimmer, like you said in another of your your posts, would be a much better composer if he had taken formal musical training.


Please don't quote me like that out of context. I was making a point about the value of education, and very clearly pointed out that Hans is an artist whose work I respect.

I have friends in that organization. Don't put words in my mouth.



> His work has contributed to the the marriage of commercial pop and orchestral music, which has led to an overall decrease in quality in film scores.



That's just bullshit.



> When I hear his scores, I rarely enjoy the film I'm watching, because I disagree with his musical choices in every situation. It's obvious he has a good ear, he's creative, but he just isn't producing mature music like his predecessors.



I'll give you a delightful example of why you're dead wrong about this, and just painting yourself more and more into a corner. _Finding Nemo._ I cannot think of another person who would have nailed that film's tone any better. It's thoroughly enjoyable, and very skillfully scored. EDIT: For some reason, I have some mental switch that makes me keep thinking Zimmer scored this film, when of course, it was Thomas Newman. But substitute any number of Zimmer's successes, _Lion King_, for an animated example, as well scored films that have done well for both Hans and the film itself.



> it's impossible to know the entire history of music and therefore I readily accept the fact that the composers I mention below may have produced fantastic work that I have simply yet to hear!



And yet you launched into another attack on those artists immediately upon typing this.

Knowing the entire history of music isn't the point. The point is that you're accusing serious artists of being hacks, while at the same time admitting you're essentially a precocious dilettante (an admission you need not make, because the people you're speaking with already know this).

If you're going to be an artist, especially a collaborative artist, you must be willing to be wrong. You must, in fact, be wrong most of the time and with great conviction. Otherwise, you're just a mamby-pamby with nothing to say.

This is why you're enjoying the benefit of a conversation right now. You have some balls. You just need to learn when to tuck 'em in, and open your mind. Precociousness will get you in the game. It won't keep you in the game.


----------



## nikolas (Apr 27, 2008)

almacg: A very few words, without disrespect or anything, although you're offering great direspect to many composers!

In order to judge and make judgement about something you do need to know it. I'm sorry but broad generalisations about serialism, various composers, etc, only prove that you have a very vague idea about what you're talking about.

You are certainly free to do and say as you please. But keep in mind that an informed opinion will hold different weight than an almost utterly ignorant one. An opinion and a post with no personal attacks on your peers (should you be a composer) will also count greater against one where you attack people, their works and spill disrespect to something which you have not researched on! 

I have little trouble seeing people not liking things. I have little trouble seeing people writing whatever music they like (even baroque for example in 2008). But seeing people trying to reduce something, instead of just not liking it, is a bit too much for me.

I'm sorry if the above seem patronising or anything close to that, but I'm merely offering my opinion on what I see wrong with almacgs' posts!


----------



## poseur (Apr 27, 2008)

well said, bruce:
succinctly, & truly.

an aerated, porous musical mind
might be seen to be very, very helpful to the velocity & breadth of personal progression,
even when considering music that one needs
to "work with" in order to appreciate its import to the world of music,
and the world-at-large:
nevermind liking it or being moved by it, for the nonce:
perspective.
vantage.
view.

if i may quote astor piazzolla, however obliquely, here:
"This is THE TANGO, MOTHERFU**ER!"
 

as well, and fwiw:
if i recall correctly,
the score to "finding nemo" was
composed by the extremely estimable (imo)
thomas newman.

d


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 27, 2008)

poseur @ Sun Apr 27 said:


> as well, and fwiw:
> if i recall correctly,
> the score to "finding nemo" was
> composed by the extremely estimable (imo)
> thomas newman.



This marks the second time I have mistakenly credited Hans with that score, too.

Perhaps my mind has become a little TOO porous!!!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 27, 2008)

> But you don't, or you'd realize that having castigated Glass for "the same two arpeggios repeated over and over endlessly," you might have opened up the way for some ironic comment...which I'll spare you.



Yeah, you really have to look beneath the surface to appreciate what Phillip Glass does. Or I should say did in the mid-70s, because the music he's doing now uses that but has more going on.

It was never just arpeggios, it was subtle interacting and evolving patterns. As Jerry Gerber puts it, that was a reaction to the idea that tonality wasn't important; it was saying that it was again - the pendulum going back.

As an aside, I suspect that endlessly repetitive loops and no melody will get old in pop music too. At least I sure as frick hòO,   x±O,   x²O,   x³O,   x´O,   xµO,   x¶O,   x·O,   x¸O,   x¹O,   xºO,   x»O,   x¼O,


----------



## rJames (Apr 27, 2008)

Qien es mas macho?

Fernando Lamas, Ricardo Montalban o Lloyd Bridges?


----------



## nikolas (Apr 28, 2008)

almacg @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> > I have little trouble seeing people not liking things. I have little trouble seeing people writing whatever music they like (even baroque for example in 2008). But seeing people trying to reduce something, instead of just not liking it, is a bit too much for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that a hypocrisy? The whole dada-ist movement was an attempt to reduce art and my openly critical attitude is an attempt to recover the lost values of art itself. And what use is the statement, 'I just don't like it'. If someone told me they didn't like a piece I'd written, I would want to know why on the basis of self-improvement.


I have nothing to do with dada-ists, etc. The above was pretty much my personal reasons to explain to you my reaction to your posts!

You go further than "I just don't like it". You are at the "I don't know it, I don't understand it, but I don't like it", and this is what I'm trying to say. 

You threw some broad assumptions in there (including Messiaen), which were far far from the truth. Not because you said "I don't like it", in which case I might asked, why don't you like it, etc, and I would have left it, after all noone of the composers you talk about are around, nor they will listen to you, or me, or anybody, but because you claimed analytical reasons, which were off! Further you disrespected many composers, which is not exactly professional, or nice, or anything good at any level. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 28, 2008)

> With regards to Cage, have you not yet realised that the soul goal of anti-art, faux art, is to destroy art itself, and reduce it to the level whereby anybody can be considered as an artist. (non musically speaking) I do not even consider anybody an artist unless they can draw, it's as simple as that. If you can't draw, which I can't, then there are two options available for you. Number 1 is to be honest and accept that you are artistically useless, and of course number 2 is to pick up a random object, place it on a pedestal and call yourself an artist. How can you not see this?



I agree that The Planets is a whole lot more interesting than Silence, and in general art installations don't do the same thing for me that Picasso does. And I think a lot of installation art and the musical equivalent is a load of shite. 

But it's not true that it's *all* faux art or music and that any old fool can pull it off. If that's what you think, then - sorry to be patronizing - you need to look more closely at what these people are doing. 

Remember, in our lifetimes most of us won't even be able to scratch the surface of what Bach or Stravinsky have done. That doesn't make what we have to say useless!


----------



## poseur (Apr 28, 2008)

i feel that there is so much wrongmindedness inherent in the apparent "conclusiveness" to your "approach" to music & composition that
i couldn't begin to respond to the myriad
convolutions & categorically (and categorising)
dismissive attitudes displayed in your presentation.
however, i will respond to the following:


almacg @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> The basic foundation of a composer is surely the ability to conceive a simple melody.


for me, this is simply NOT the case,
in any way at all, and never has been so.

for myself, i can and do enjoy writing from a 
melodic basis 
--- have had some small amount of "success", in this regard, as well as others ---
but it certainly could never
narrowly define the range of my musical pursuits
in sonics (arrangement & orch.),
the enfolding smooth integration of "noise",
tuning systems,
rhythm, harmony, melody, and:
meaning & intention.
meaning.
intention.
meaning.

what i've found to be key to & at the
very heart of the creation of MUSIC 
(and composition) is that the musician (composer)
must become capable of conveying meaning.....
..... which is a very personal & extremely difficult, ever-receding goal,
often having little-to-nothing to do with 
the composer's formal education,
the idiomatic company they keep,
the technologies they employ,
the "field" in which they work, their hairstyles,
current level of popularity, etc etc etc.
meaning.
intention.
meaning.

these may be subtle & potentially difficult
concepts,
although real enough for me (and many others)
to have
spent lifetime(s) pursuing them as the
basic, "raw" working materials.

as well, and no small feat?
i think that one cannot become an accomplished musician and composer
without actively learning how
to listen, and without actively learning how to hear; these are continuous self-educatory processes,
and can never truly be mastered.
i say thisall inclusively, with the goal that
such efforts remain aimed at the whole
whack of life, not merely nor only its musical applications.

i'll continue with this as my basic assumption,
since it seems you intend to become a film-composer:

in the case of composing for dramatic & visual media,
the number & density of the composer's tasks towards meaning are significantly compounded
by the requirements of story, character, visual impact of the medium..... 
--- not to mention the many "personalities" involved in any given project, and the commercial needs to "deliver" ---
..... so, how do we convey the necessary "meaning" in service to the picture (as it were),
while maintaining the forward motion of our own internal drive towards meaning, with integrity?
how to utilise musical "archetypes", without
resorting to cheap & tawdry "stereotypes"?
have the strengths in our own voice(s) truly been applied, in this? 

i present these vagaries to ya in hopes that
they may help you move forward out of 
what appears to me to be a sort of protective
musical shell you've esconsced yourself within;
of course,
this is only my perception,
there's not necessarily anything wrong with that!,
it's just that there's
an insanely variegated & broad world of music to enjoy, to be absorbed by
& USED by composers & musicians alike.

good fortune to ya;
i do hope that you become a bit more
"open", before your grey-matter (and heart)
concretise into the typical, even further intellectual restrictions often seen with the onset of age,
after the onslaught of life.

ah, and a PS:
even learning a bit about the actual,
practically musical usages of poly- & bi-tonalism
--- ostensibly the original subject, here ---
might serve to further
both your music and your brizzains,
i'd wager.

d


----------



## DVincent (Apr 28, 2008)

Alex,

You are mistaken about nobody being able to compose serial music in their head. Schoenberg did (as did others). He left no evidence that I know of that he utilize matrices. An analysis of his serial works shows he was familiar with the sound of his tone row as you are with C major. He sketched ideas out and made alterations as any tonal composer would - *or should*. I am able to hear the tone rows in serial music. I do not have absolute pitch. I notice if a composition left out or misplaced a note from the series. I know many other musicians who can hear this music as I can. Yes, the extreme total serial works are often beyond my capabilities. But many late Romantic works are beyond the tonal listening capabilities of many listeners. This doesn't necessarily detract from the enjoyment of the music. 

The music I hear in my head is not traditionally tonal. I can't help that this is the music my mind creates. I can hear and compose utilizing tonality just fine. It is an option for me, but if left to my own devices it is not what I gravitate to naturally. Does this make me a poor composer? After all, I can appreciate _and_ compose in the styles of the music you are deifying. To hold any one style of music above all is to be elitist. It denigrates not only other music in Western culture, but of music from all cultures of the world. A listener from another culture may hear _The Planets_ and comment:

"The rhythms are monotonous, predictable, and basic. The melodies are simple. Where are the emotional embellishments? It is just one note, then the next, then the next... Temporally it is like listening to a big clock ticking away. And why do all of the instruments need to play simultaneously in a big out of tune crash?" Etc, etc, etc....

We are typically encultured into our musical likes. It trains us to focus on what is pertinent in that particular style. We then tend to compare all others music by that standard, when in fact, each style and each piece should stand on its own merits based on its cultural and historical precedence. I may not "like" all the music I hear, but I can appreciate it if I know where the composer is coming from as an artist - including your compositions. :wink: 

Derek


----------



## almacg (Apr 28, 2008)

Dvincent:

I regard Schoenberg as a man with an immense musical ability (possibly one of the greatest musical minds) but I base that conclusion on Verklarte Nacht which I mentioned earlier. That you say twelve-tone piece is possible to mentally conceive is very interesting, as I previously believed there was no way to 'hear' it. I would however predict, based on my own experiences, that it wouldn't be possible to 'hear' an entire serialist work in the way that a tonal piece can be concieved. Would it be possible to hear an inversion of the original theme alongside the theme itself, whilst something else is happening?

Poseur:

When I was talking about melody I wasn't implying that all music should be melodic, but that a composer should be able to write one before they decide that they are 'composer material'. I personally have yet to hear a melody from John Cage, therefore I can't conclude that he is a composer.
The ability to convey meaning is an absolute must for any composer, but for me intentional dissonance and not just for its own sake, is far more meaningful. Therefore, Ritual Fire Dance by Manuel de Falla is surely infinitely more meaningful than the 30 pieces by John Cage.

Nikolas:

I accept that in regards to Messaien and Boulez (particularly boulez however), I could not claim to fully understand the workings of their music. Obviously as I know a lot more than I did when I was 17, I accept that there is some naivety on my part, and in a few more years I may well have a completely different attitude! But, is understanding the same as liking? I first heard the planets when I was about 4, and I loved it. But could you claim that a four year old could possibly understand the entire workings of this kind of music? I don't think that if somebody sat me down and explained the workings behind Boulez' music, that I would ever enjoy it. I think its more a case of adjusting to harmonies which may seem bizarre to the 'untrained' ear. But then again, hardcore death metal sounds obnoxious to many people's ears, potentially even to those who have studied music - possibly even written it - half their lives. The notion that if a piece of music takes a considerable amount of effort to aurally adjust to, does not necassarily mean that it is musically superior. If this was the case, then the work of somebody with no musical ability, who was only writing because they were forced to, would theoretically be superior to a 'comfortable' piece written by a trained musician/composer! 




> Remember, in our lifetimes most of us won't even be able to scratch the surface of what Bach or Stravinsky have done. That doesn't make what we have to say useless!



Nick: whether or not we have something to say, is not really a reflection of whether we have anything good to write (musically)! Whether or not John Cage said anything poignant, should be a reflection of his intellect and philisophy, not of his musical or artistic ability. If he were classed as a philosopher, I would have less trouble with him! In regards to Tracy Emin, I'd love to listen to what her views on the way of the world are, but whether or not I agreed with her would not affect the way I feel about her work!

With regards to the original topic :oops: I think polytonality and quartals are less often heard in our society. I can't speak for recent concert works, but I think it's fairly obvious that incidental music is less musically daring as it used to be. I personally think that incidental music should take a few steps back in the right direction, and learn from the past rather than the present.


----------



## DVincent (Apr 28, 2008)

almacg @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> I regard Schoenberg as a man with an immense musical ability (possibly one of the greatest musical minds) but I base that conclusion on Verklarte Nacht which I mentioned earlier. That you say twelve-tone piece is possible to mentally conceive is very interesting, as I previously believed there was no way to 'hear' it.



Maybe it would be interesting for you to explore unfamiliar areas of music. You might be surprised after becoming acquainted with the language and goals of "non-tonal/non-traditional" music how approachable it can be. Or you could continue to make generalizations about that which you admit to have little or no experience with. Remember, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." Go experience it. I think that may be what Bruce is saying about attending a performance of a work like 4'33". We can talk about how ridiculous or anti-musical it might be, but until we actually experience it for ourselves we don't actually know.



almacg @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> I would however predict, based on my own experiences, that it wouldn't be possible to 'hear' an entire serialist work in the way that a tonal piece can be concieved.



Technically you would be correct. It is not possible to "hear" a serial work in the way that a tonal piece is comprehended. They typically have different goals and focal points. It is like comparing oranges and wheat grass. You could certainly digest both, but one might go down easier. They both serve a function and you might benefit by tasting the less palatable option on occasion. You may even begin to appreciate its peculiarities.

This also brings me to a point about tonality. I believe the tonal system doesn't have the same value today as it did in the past. Many listeners no longer care or even recognize if a work comes back (or if it doesn't) to the original tonal center as it concludes. Try this: take a Mozart piano sonata and locate a modulatory area that contains a sequence. Add a bar or two to the sequence and transpose the rest of the piece accordingly. I would suspect the average listener would not realize this change of tonal center in the recap. I doubt I would notice if it was within a step or so in either direction of the original key. I would probably assume I just got lost somewhere and would adjust my aural reference. As long as the other signs are present that we are now recapitulating we can accept that we have come back home.

Touching base with the author's original question, this devaluing of the function of tonality coupled with "Post Modern" sensibilities creates an environment where anything can follow anything else stylistically. So, these techniques are still around, albeit not extensively for an entire work. As mentioned previously, bitonality is still utilzed for dramatic effect. I question whether most listeners can perceive two tonalities or if they just get a sense of uneasiness in the music. For me, many film composers work in a style I would call "vestigial tonality." They are not focused on the original intentions of the tonal system. The music has a sonorist quality to it - focusing on the characteristics, quality, and texture of sound. Elfman's music is wonderful, but is his exploration of chromatic mediant relationships tonally functional - does the new "tonic" get tonicized? Or is he exploring the emotive qualities of this relationship without considering the return to the original tonal center? Regardless, it is still interesting.



almacg @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> Would it be possible to hear an inversioòO‰   x¾O‰   x¿O‰   xÀO‰   xÁO‰   xÂO‰   xÃO‰   xÄO‰   xÅO‰   xÆO‰   xÇO‰   xÈO‰   xÉO‰   xÊO‰   xËO‰   xÌO‰   xÍO‰   xÎO‰   xÏO‰   xÐOŠ   xÑOŠ   xÒOŠ   xÓOŠ   xÔOŠ   xÕOŠ   xÖOŠ   x×OŠ   xØOŠ   xÙOŠ   xÚOŠ   xÛOŠ   xÜOŠ   xÝOŠ   xÞOŠ   xßOŠ   xàOŠ   xáOŠ   xâOŠ   xãOŠ   xäOŠ   xåOŠ   xæOŠ   xçOŠ   xèOŠ   xéOŠ   xêOŠ   xëOŠ   xìOŠ   xíOŠ   xîOŠ   xïOŠ   xðOŠ   xñOŠ   xòOŠ   xóOŠ   xôOŠ   xõOŠ   xöOŠ   x÷OŠ   xøOŠ   xùOŠ   xúOŠ   xûOŠ   xüOŠ   xýOŠ   xþOŠ   xÿOŠ   x OŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   x	OŠ   x
> OŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   x OŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   xOŠ   x OŠ   x!OŠ   x"OŠ   x#OŠ   x$OŠ


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 29, 2008)

almacg @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> Whether or not we have something to say, is not really a reflection of whether we have anything good to write (musically)!



If you become an artist, you will live to refute that statement.


----------



## poseur (Apr 29, 2008)

almacg @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> With regards to the original topic :oops: I think polytonality and quartals are less often heard in our society.


another "interesting" statement, again, 
since it applies not-at-all to my own listening habits,
those of my family, friends
& many actively-working compatriots:
composers and musicians.




almacg @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> I can't speak for recent concert works, but I think it's fairly obvious that incidental music is less musically daring as it used to be.


there is, indeed, much recycling of ideas in
music-for-film:
as far as i can tell,
the actual deciding factors for the "whys" and "hows" for this are slightly more complex 
than (i believe) you imagine.
as well, i can't envision that a return to the more academic strictures of Western Orchestral Music (esp. pre 20th Century) and/or formalism is a "complete" answer to your perception of the loss of said "daring";
indeed, for myself, i've found a great number of "older" film-scores to feel pedestrian, cheesy &
condescending tell-the-audience-what-to-feel-even-though-they're-already-feeling-it, etc.

that said?
please go make some "daring" incidental music, yourself,
if you are so committed, inclined & capable.
this is our only REAL course-of-action,
(and course-of-action is all-we-have)
as composers & musicians.
everything else is utterly meaningless blather,
afaic,
when there remain tools-to-hand
for our personal manipulations.





almacg @ Mon Apr 28 said:


> I personally think that incidental music should take a few steps back in the right direction, and learn from the past rather than the present.


with no sense of "rating" or "numbering" any of the following,
while not coming even remotely close to being "comprehensive",
i would humbly submit that you might find a way to listen to some of these scores --- first with the picture, then without:
road to perdition
pi
blackhawk down
a beautiful mind
fur
there will be blood
big fish
the motorcycle diaries
white oleander
run, lola, run
birth
the painted veil
pan's labyrinth
the ring
memoirs of a geisha
eastern promises
the assassination of jesse james by the coward robert ford
terra
the good thief
frida
donnie darko
fargo
miller's crossing

as well, amongst MANY,
the following composers are alive and thriving,
and their works are readily available:
tigran mansurian
arvo part
john adams
giya kancheli
steve reich
terry riley
phillipe koutev
glenn branca

etc etc etc etc etc etc;
these "lists" are necessarily limited by my own
lack of "free"-time, here.

d


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 29, 2008)

"Nick: whether or not we have something to say, is not really a reflection of whether we have anything good to write (musically)!"

Obviously I meant something to say musically, not philosophically. There's lots of music I don't particulary like that still has a lot to say.

And why pick on John Cage? There are ten million looped pieces of crap on the radio at any given minute that are far less interesting than anything he did.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 29, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 29 said:


> And why pick on John Cage?


"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."


----------



## midphase (Apr 29, 2008)

Poseur,

Who are you? I think that knowing a bit about your background and professional experience would give us (me) more context in which to interpret your statements.


----------



## almacg (Apr 29, 2008)

deleted


----------



## JohnG (Apr 29, 2008)

Hi all,

Not to pile too far into a lively and interesting discussion, but I think Alex' views are being attacked pretty aggressively and, to some extent, unfairly. It is perilous in short-hand to attack anything that people love and maybe it could have been done better, but I think he is making some points that are defensible even though the somewhat, ahem, crude rhetoric at times has left him open to attack.

For a start, I love the music of Alban Berg, Penderecki, Bartok, Arvo Part, Phillip Glass and some of the work of many other 20th century "art" composers, but I certainly don't like all of the 20th century opus, and even find a lot of it, like Alex, to be finally, to use Andy Warhol's term, "a fraud." So I am a bit on both sides of this fence.

If I read him correctly (which maybe I'm not), Alex seems to be attacking two kinds of art -- first, art that is more about the concept than the execution; and second, art that is valid either exclusively or significantly as a protest or a rhetorical question about some other topic that is largely or exclusively intellectual -- the nature of music, art and whether or to what extent it should be a mode of communication, the artist and audience's relationship, tradition versus innovation, questioning assumptions, mathematical relationships or geometric patterns, and so on. 

Structure to music of course is common and obviously valid, but I find that I am unsatisfied with the result if the structure IS the music -- deciding all the notes and or dynamics and or entrances based on a skyline or other arbitrary metric is just rubbish to me, when viewed as music, however provocative it might be as the beginning of an argument about what music is 'supposed' to be. I've written a few bits like this myself and they can be effective briefly, but I still am very suspicious of them.

One measure of "good" is longevity. Not the only measure, but one of them. I will be astonished if anyone is interested in some of the primarily rhetorical composers of the 20th century more than a few years after they've lived, not because their work isn't "valid" at the time, but because in some cases its validity depends on the audience's ability to engage on that rhetorical level, which in turn may depend on one of a number of things that start to die with the death of the composer/creator and the world in which he dwelt:

1. the charisma and persuasiveness of the performer/speaker/promoter, 
2. an informed understanding of the goals and context of the piece, especially when understanding those goals and context are crucial to enjoying or appreciating the piece and they are part of the zeitgeist of the era of the composer, 
3. an understanding on the part of the listener of which particular 'hidebound tradition' is getting attacked.

And for me, another measure of art on which I sympathise with Alex -- it's irrational but whatever -- is asking, besides the work being enjoyable to a listener without lengthy explanation or elaborately prepared context, that it be difficult to execute, either in the production (writing out a score or painting the painting) or the execution (playing it back). I know that's a prejudice, but there it is. If it's trivial to do and trivial to execute, that isn't really enough for me to think it's much besides a clever trick.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 29, 2008)

almacg @ Tue Apr 29 said:


> I see that you take critisicm of John Cage's work very personally. Isn't the point of his work supposed to challenge our perceptions of art and music, to correct the conservative attitudes of those who deify the works of artists and composers?



I'm not debating you, I'm trying (and apparently failing) to help you broaden your approach to art. If you imagine you are in a position to correct me, then it is an unfortunate assumption on your part. I could elaborate, but it would be mean.


----------



## almacg (Apr 30, 2008)

I know what you mean; that you feel I'm in no position to pass any judgement on dada-ism. Some of the reasons you have for this I would no doubt agree with, but at this time in my life particularly I am very much irritated by this kind of work and here's why:

This academic year I had to take out a loan of £3000 to pay for tuition fees to take a music degree (not including the other £3000 to pay rent). The primary reason I wanted to take the course was to better myself at the art of composition, because quite obviously I have a stupendous amount to learn. However right now, after just 7 months, I have left the course!
Composition on my course was not taken particularly seriously for starters. In the first term, other than a musical exercise we weren't given any help as to how to 'musically' better ourselves. We all had to write four pieces. 2 were pieces of music. 2 were pieces of noise. I didn't boher to complete the noise pieces as we only needed to submit 2 pieces. However, I wasn't given any help at all in completing my compositions, so I might as well have just written them of my own accord. 
During this first term, there was one thing that was taken very seriously, and that was post-modernism. Do you think it is fair for a focused individual who just wants to 'realise their potential', to be forced to listen to a woman playing a flute with a gas mask over her face? Or to be forced to watch John Cage walk up and down turning on and off various kitchen appliances whilst periodically bashing a piano to create a cacophony! 
This has shockingly become the norm with every music degree (save those of the conservatoires) in England and I rightly feel that the values of music and composition are being swept under the carpet, so that a strange new era of music for its own sake can take hold.
I have no idea of the situation in other countries, but English music degrees favour those who have no idea what they want to achieve. I always asked people what they wanted to do when they left university, and funnily enough the people who were as outspoken against modernism as I were knew exactly what they wanted to do with their lives. The people who seemed more open minded to modernist idealogies, unsuprisingly just wanted to get a degree, but ultimately had no idea if they would even get a job in the music industry. 
Frankly modernism (post-modernism?) ruined my degree. I actually feel like John Cage's family should give me my money back, especially since they won a 6 figure lawsuit against a man who made a minute long, piece of silence! They can afford it the hypocritical, fraudulent b******!
So maybe that will help you understand why I am so outraged by modernis art. It's not like one day I just decided to randomly have a go at John Cage for no reason other than to infuriate his contempories. This has affected me on a personal level, and heavily influenced me to drop out of a degree. I will continue to protest such art, as, according to wikipidia (!) have the likes of Noam Chomsky (who'm I readily admit I knew nothing about) and Richard Dawkins. Bruce I suggest you read up on "Disumbrationism" to further realise just why people are so infuriated by the dangers of an extremely liberal artistic ideology. I'll admit to just having found that on wikipedia, and I'd never heard of it before, but it is VERY interesting indeed!

As a final irony, maybe Duchamp's reaction to romanticism and impressionism was simply a *mediocre mind violently opposing the great spirit of the musical/artistic genius?*. >8o


----------



## Hannes_F (Apr 30, 2008)

almacg @ Wed Apr 30 said:


> However right now, after just 7 months, I have left the course!



Ouch. Alex, now I see where you are coming from.

Actually every art form has its blind spots that are better detected from a little distance. I remember when I was studying music the actor's class of our academy would not let a single performance pass without executing sexual rape on stage. When I saw the director/teacher it became very obvious that he was burdened with complexes over and over and somehow had managed to get into a teaching position. Would I have been studying acting there I would have quit for sure.

My best advice would nevertheless be to continue with your composing study. I have been visiting your site before and know that you really have the potential to create outstanding music ... but only after a certain ripening and clarification process. Understanding 20th century music as much as possible is part of this process, and be it only for knowing what to avoid later and how. 

I personally have been performing a lot of 20th century works on stage and in studio, among them even world premieres. I identified with them for the rehearsal and performance time but when looking at them later with a composer's eye I admit that many of them just were intellectual. So slowly I found my own taste and am developing it more and more ... but I can listen calmly to the loudest cacophony if necessary.

If you can manage to go through it it will mature you. Then develop your own 21th century style. I think it would be worth the effort.

Cheers
Hannes


----------



## Ethos (Apr 30, 2008)

Some of these comments remind me of a great quote I heard when an interviewer asked John Adams who his favorite composer is. He said, "John Cage _was_ my favorite composer... until I realized I don't particularly like anything he wrote."


----------



## nikolas (Apr 30, 2008)

Alex,

I know that this is getting more and more off topic, but I really need to speak now!

First of all, please be certain that I don't know you as a person (do I? :S) and I will, necessarily make some assumptions, which may very well be untrue, in which case you may say so. I'm not attempting to insult you, or prove you wrong. It's your life and you do what you want with it!

_____________________________

So,

It is very important for you to understand that YOU alone, quit your degree!


> Frankly modernism (post-modernism?) ruined my degree.


No, you ruined your own degree, it's your choice. In life we go through some rough things some times, whether we like or not, whether we've planned it or not! I'm sorry if this sounds patronising, or "old man talk" (while I'm quite younger than many of the core members in here), but the truth is that you can't always be happy. You take the good with the bad, etc. 

If you'd stay and took your degree (which I wholeheartily advice), you would be able to teach for a living (after a year of paid training), you would be able to go for postgraduate, where things ARE better. You could have a whole different life. And you could actually keep a place, which you took from someone who could potentially be more interested than you, since there are limited places in a university. That one person, who lost his place so you can stay for 7 months and then quit, his degree was ruined by you, if you think about it! (something to consider I guess).

I don't know which college you went, I don't know what exercises they gave you but here's what I know:

1. I'm in Royal Holloway, University of London. I did an MMus in there and finishiòOà   x61Oà   x62Oà   x63Oà   x64Oà   x65Oà   x66Oà   x67Oà   x68Oà   x69Oà   x6:Oà   x6;Oà   x6<Oà   x6=Oà   x6>Oà   x6?Oà   [email protected]Oà   x6AOà   x6BOà   x6COà   x6DOà   x6EOà   x6FOà   x6GOà   x6HOà   x6IOà   x6JOà   x6KOà   x6LOà   x6MOà   x6NOà   x6OOà   x6POá   x5¡Oá   x5¢Oá   x5£Oá   x5¤Oá   x5¥Oá   x5¦Oá   x5§Oá   x5¨Oá   x5©Oá   x5ªOá   x5«Oá   x5¬Oá   x5­Oá   x5®Oá   x5¯Oá   x5°Oâ   x5›Oâ   x5œOâ   x5Oâ   x5žOâ   x5ŸOâ   x5 Oâ   x7Oâ   x7Oâ   x7Oâ   x7Oâ   x7Oâ   x7Oâ   x7Oâ   x7Oâ   x7Oâ   x7 Oâ   x7!Oâ   x7"Oâ   x7#Oâ   x7$Oâ   x7%Oâ   x7&Oâ   x7'Oâ   x7(Oâ   x7)Oâ   x7*Oâ   x7+Oâ   x7,Oâ   x7-Oâ   x7.Oâ   x7/Oâ   x70Oâ   x71Oâ   x72Oâ   x73Oâ   x74Oâ   x75Oâ   x76Oâ   x77Oâ   x78Oâ   x79Oâ   x7:Oâ   x7;Oâ   x7<Oâ   x7=Oâ   x7>Oâ   x7?Oâ   [email protected]Oâ   x7AOâ   x7BOâ   x7COâ   x7DOâ   x7EOâ   x7FOâ   x7GOâ   x7HOâ   x7IOâ   x7JOâ   x7KOâ   x7LOâ   x7MOâ   x7NOâ   x7OOâ   x7P              òOâ   x7ROâ   x7SOâ   x7TOâ   x7UOâ   x7VOâ   x7WOâ   x7XOâ   x7YOâ   x7ZOâ   x7[Oâ   x7\Oâ   x7]Oâ   x7^Oâ   x7_Oâ   x7`Oâ   x7aOâ   x7bOâ   x7cOâ   x7dOâ   x7eOâ   x7fOâ   x7gOâ   x7hOâ   x7iOâ   x7jOâ   x7kOâ   x7lOâ   x7mOâ   x7nOâ   x7oOâ   x7pOâ   x7qOâ   x7rOâ   x7sOâ   x7tOâ   x7uOâ   x7vOâ   x7wOâ   x7xOâ   x7yOâ   x7zOâ   x7{Oâ   x7|Oâ   x7}Oâ   x7~Oâ   x7Oâ   x7€Oâ   x7Oâ   x7‚Oâ   x7ƒOâ   x7„Oâ   x7…Oâ   x7†Oâ   x7‡Oâ   x7ˆOâ   x7‰Oâ   x7ŠOâ   x7‹Oâ   x7ŒOâ   x7Oâ   x7ŽOâ   x7Oâ   x7Oâ   x7‘Oâ   x7’Oâ   x7“Oâ   x7”Oâ   x7•Oâ   x7–Oâ   x7—Oâ   x7˜Oâ   x7™Oâ   x7šOâ   x7›Oâ   x7œOâ   x7Oâ   x7žOâ   x7ŸOâ   x7 Oâ   x7ÓOâ   x7ÔOâ   x7ÕOâ   x7ÖOâ   x7×Oâ   x7ØOâ   x7ÙOâ   x7ÚOã   x7¡Oã   x7¢Oã   x7£Oã   x7¤Oã   x7¥Oã   x7¦Oã   x7§Oã   x7¨Oã   x7©Oã   x7ªOã   x7«Oã   x7¬Oã   x7­Oã   x7®Oã   x7¯Oã   x7°Oã   x7±Oã   x7²Oã   x7³Oã   x7´Oã   x7µOã   x7¶Oã   x7·Oã   x7¸Oã   x7¹              òOã   x7»Oã   x7¼Oã   x7½Oã   x7¾Oã   x7¿Oã   x7ÀOã   x7ÁOã   x7ÂOã   x7ÃOã   x7ÄOã   x7ÅOã   x7ÆOã   x7ÇOã   x7ÈOã   x7ÉOã   x7ÊOã   x7ËOã   x7ÌOã   x7ÍOã   x7ÎOã   x7ÏOã   x7ÐOã   x7ÑOã   x7ÒOä   x7ÛOä   x7ÜOä   x7ÝOä   x7ÞOä   x7ßOä   x7àOä   x7áOä   x7âOä   x7ãOä   x7äOä   x7åOä   x7æOä   x7çOä   x7èOä   x7éOä   x7êOä   x7ëOä   x7ìOä   x7íOä   x7îOä   x7ïOä   x7ðOå   x7ñOå   x7òOå   x7óOå   x7ôOå   x7õOå   x7öOå   x7÷Oå   x7øOå   x7ùOå   x7úOå   x7ûOå   x7üOå   x7ýOå   x7þOå   x7ÿOå   x8 Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8	Oå   x8
Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8 Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8Oå   x8 Oå   x8!Oå   x8"Oå   x8#Oå   x8$Oå   x8%Oå   x8&Oæ   x8'Oæ   x8(Oæ   x8)Oæ   x8*Oæ   x8+Oæ   x8,Oæ   x8-Oæ   x8.Oæ   x8/Oæ   x80Oæ   x81Oæ   x82              òOæ   x84Oæ   x85Oæ   x86Oæ   x87Oæ   x88Oæ   x89Oæ   x8:Oæ   x8;Oæ   x8<Oæ   x8=Oæ   x8>Oæ   x8?Oæ   [email protected]Oæ   x8AOæ   x8BOæ   x8COæ   x8DOæ   x8EOæ   x8FOæ   x8GOæ   x8HOæ   x8IOæ   x8JOæ   x8KOæ   x8LOæ   x8MOæ   x8NOæ   x8OOæ   x8POæ   x8QOæ   x8ROæ   x8SOæ   x8TOæ   x8UOæ   x8VOæ   x8WOæ   x8XOæ   x8YOæ   x8ZOæ   x8[Oæ   x8\Oæ   x8]Oæ   x8^Oæ   x8_Oæ   x8`Oæ   x8aOæ   x8bOæ   x8cOæ   x8dOæ   x8eOæ   x8fOæ   x8gOæ   x8hOæ   x8iOæ   x8jOæ   x8kOæ   x8lOæ   x8mOæ   x8nOæ   x8oOæ   x8pOæ   x8qOæ   x8rOæ   x8sOæ   x8tOæ   x8uOæ   x8vOæ   x8wOæ   x8xOæ   x8yOæ   x8zOæ   x8{Oæ   x8|Oæ   x8}Oæ   x8~Oç   x8Oç   x8€Oç   x8Oç   x8‚Oç   x8ƒOç   x8„Oç   x8…Oç   x8†Oç   x8‡Oç   x8ˆOç   x8‰Oç   x8ŠOç   x8‹Oç   x8ŒOç   x8Oç   x8ŽOè   x8Oè   x8Oè   x8‘Oè   x8’Oè   x8“Oè   x8”Oè   x8•Oè   x8–Oè   x8—Oè   x8˜Oè   x8™Oè   x8šOè   x8›Oè   x8œOè   x8Oè   x8žOè   x8ŸOè   x8 Oè   x8¡Oè   x8¢Oè   x8£               agree that things in the UK are very much inclined towards contemporary music. Then again, you don't need a university course to teach you tonal music, do you? (this is rhetorical, I don't think you do).

I wish you all the best, Alex.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 30, 2008)

"One measure of "good" is longevity. Not the only measure, but one of them."

Yup. And in that context it's interesting that "the music industry" throws out supermodel artists at the end of every season. That's why I'm happy to see Mariah Carey's latest album at #1 - not that I'm in love with everything she does, but she's a good singer and she's still selling records in tough times for the music industry in her late 30s.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Apr 30, 2008)

almacg @ Wed Apr 30 said:


> I have no idea of the situation in other countries, but English music degrees favour those who have no idea what they want to achieve.



How far along are you in your music degree?

Look Alex, you're obviously angry and lashing out at a particular brand of music. We're at the bottom of the issue, now, which is great, because it explainsòOð   x:WOð   x:XOð   x:YOð   x:ZOð   x:[Oð   x:\Oð   x:]Oð   x:^Oð   x:_Oð   x:`Oð   x:aOð   x:bOð   x:cOð   x:dOð   x:eOð   x:fOð   x:gOð   x:hOð   x:iOð   x:jOð   x:kOð   x:lOð   x:mOð   x:nOð   x:oOð   xOð   x:qOð   x:rOð   x:sOð   x:tOð   x:uOð   x:vOð   x:wOð   x:xOð   x:yOð   x:zOð   x:{Oð   x:|Oð   x:}Oð   x:~Oð   x:Oð   x:€Oð   x:Oð   x:‚Oð   x:ƒOð   x:„Oñ   x:…Oñ   x:†Oñ   x:‡Oñ   x:ˆOñ   x:‰Oñ   x:ŠOñ   x:‹Oñ   x:ŒOñ   x:Oñ   x:ŽOñ   x:Oñ   x:Oñ   x:‘Oñ   x:’Oñ   x:“Oñ   x:”Oñ   x:•Oñ   x:–Oñ   x:—Oñ   x:˜Oñ   x:™Oñ   x:šOñ   x:›Oñ   x:œOñ   x:Oñ   x:žOñ   x:ŸOñ   x: Oñ   x:¡Oñ   x:¢Oñ   x:£Oñ   x:¤Oñ   x:¥Oñ   x:¦Oñ   x:§Oñ   x:¨Oñ   x:©Oñ   x:ªOñ   x:«Oñ   x:¬Oñ   x:­Oñ   x:®Oñ   x:¯Oñ   x:°Oñ   x:±Oñ   x:²Oñ   x:³Oñ   x:´Oñ   x:µOñ   x:¶Oñ   x:·Oñ   x:¸Oñ   x:¹Oñ   x:ºOñ   x:»Oñ   x:¼Oñ   x:½Oñ   x:¾Oñ   x:¿Oñ   x:ÀOñ   x:ÁOñ   x:ÂOñ   x:ÃOñ   x:ÄOñ   x:ÅOñ   x:Æ              òOñ   x:ÈOñ   x:ÉOñ   x:ÊOñ   x:ËOñ   x:ÌOñ   x:ÍOñ   x:ÎOñ   x:ÏOñ   x:ÐOñ   x:ÑOñ   x:ÒOñ   x:ÓOñ   x:ÔOñ   x:ÕOñ   x:ÖOñ   x:×Oñ   x:ØOñ   x:ÙOñ   x:ÚOñ   x:ÛOñ   x:ÜOñ   x:ÝOñ   x:ÞOñ   x:ßOñ   x:àOñ   x:áOñ   x:âOñ   x:ãOñ   x:äOñ   x:åOñ   x:æOñ   x:çOñ   x:èOñ   x:éOñ   x:êOñ   x:ëOñ   x:ìOñ   x:íOñ   x:îOñ   x:ïOñ   x:ðOò   x:ñOò   x:òOò   x:óOò   x:ôOò   x:õOò   x:öOò   x:÷Oò   x:øOò   x:ùOò   x:úOò   x:ûOò   x:üOò   x:ýOò   x:þOò   x:ÿOò   x; Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;	Oò   x;
Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x; Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x;Oò   x; Oò   x;!Oò   x;"Oò   x;#Oò   x;$Oò   x;%Oò   x;&Oò   x;'Oò   x;(Oò   xOò   x;*Oò   x;+Oò   x;,Oò   x;-Oò   x;.Oò   x;/Oò   x;0Oò   x;1Oò   x;2Oò   x;3Oò   x;4Oò   x;5Oò   x;6Oò   x;7              òOò   x;9Oò   x;:Oò   x;;Oò   x;<Oò   x;=Oò   x;>Oò   x;?Oò   x;@Oò   x;AOò   x;BOò   x;COò   x;DOò   x;EOò   x;FOò   x;GOò   x;HOò   x;IOò   x;JOò   x;KOò   x;LOò   x;MOò   x;NOò   x;OOò   x;POò   x;QOò   x;ROò   x;SOò   x;TOò   x;UOò   x;VOò   x;WOò   x;XOò   x;YOò   x;ZOò   x;[Oò   x;\Oò   x;]Oò   x;^Oò   x;_Oò   x;`Oò   x;aOò   x;bOò   x;cOò   x;dOò   x;eOò   x;fOò   x;gOò   x;hOò   x;iOò   x;jOò   x;kOò   x;lOò   x;mOò   x;nOò   x;oOò   x;pOò   x;qOò   x;rOò   x;sOò   x;tOò   x;uOò   x;vOò   x;wOò   x;xOò   x;yOò   x;zOò   x;{Oò   x;|Oò   x;}Oò   x;~Oò   x;Oò   x;€Oò   x;Oò   x;‚Oò   x;ƒOò   x;„Oó   x;…Oó   x;†Oó   x;‡Oó   x;ˆOó   x;‰Oó   x;ŠOó   x;‹Oó   x;ŒOó   x;Oó   x;ŽOó   x;Oó   x;Oó   x;‘Oó   x;’Oó   x;“Oó   x;”Oó   x;•Oó   x;–Oó   x;—Oó   x;˜Oó   x;™Oó   x;šOó   x;›Oó   x;œOó   x;Oó   x;žOó   x;ŸOó   x; Oó   x;¡Oó   x;¢Oó   x;£Oó   x;¤Oó   x;¥Oó   x;¦Oó   x;§Oó   x;¨              òOó   x;ªOó   x;«Oó   x;¬Oó   x;­Oó   x;®Oó   x;¯Oó   x;°Oó   x;±Oó   x;²Oó   x;³Oó   x;´Oó   x;µOó   x;¶Oó   x;·Oó   x;¸Oó   x;¹Oó   x;ºOó   x;»Oó   x;¼Oó   x;½Oó   x;¾Oó   x;¿Oó   x;ÀOó   x;ÁOó   x;ÂOó   x;ÃOó   x;ÄOó   x;ÅOó   x;ÆOó   x;ÇOó   x;ÈOó   x;ÉOó   x;ÊOó   x;ËOó   x;ÌOó   x;ÍOó   x;ÎOó   x;ÏOó   x;ÐOó   x;ÑOó   x;ÒOó   x;ÓOó   x;ÔOó   x;ÕOó   x;ÖOó   x;×Oó   x;ØOó   x;ÙOó   x;ÚOó   x;ÛOó   x;ÜOó   x;ÝOó   x;ÞOó   x;ßOó   x;àOó   x;áOó   x;âOó   x;ãOó   x;äOó   x;åOó   x;æOó   x;çOó   x;èOó   x;éOó   x;êOó   x;ëOó   x;ìOó   x;íOó   x;îOó   x;ïOó   x;ðOó   x;ñOó   x;òOó   x;óOó   x;ôOó   x;õOó   x;öOó   x;÷Oó   x;øOó   x;ùOó   x;úOó   x;ûOó   x;üOó   x;ýOó   x;þOó   x;ÿOó   x< Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<	Oó   x<
Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x< Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<Oó   x<               career artist faces in life.

Here's what you will face, if you're a media/film/collaborative composer: You will be at the table with several artists on any given project. The higher you go, the more collaborative your work must become. You WILL BE asked to compose in every style you currently disdain, and you WILL BE brought into conversations about those very composing/artistic movements you despise.

And you'll be judged as harshly as you judge.

Why would you waste your time "protesting" art?

You know what it tempts people to do? I'll tell you what it tempted me to do. I went to your web page. I read every word of your Bio. I listened to every note of music you had on the web...just to try to discern where your bitterness was coming from.

And if I wanted, I could shred you up. And that's what YOUR behavior in this conversation makes me want to do as a human, with all the frailties of any human. It makes me want to slap that smug attitude right out of you, to hear you completely disdaining work that I have direct and meaningful experience in both composing and playing...because I am human, and when you disparage artists and entire artistic movements that I've poured my creative efforts into not only appreciating, but VALIDATING, then my human tendency is to put you in your place.

But what I'd rather do is invite you to consider that you've been given a huge list of listening and study material here, and a lot of food for thought. I think that if you listen with an open mind and heart, you will discover that most modern media composers draw a HUGE amount of material and influence from the movements that you disdain. In fact, I can tell you first hand that it's demanded. You can't score everything tonally. It would be flat-out wrong to do so, we do not live in a tonal world. Entropy exists. Every entity, art included, continues to dissolve into ever more deconstructed and chaotic forms. Time isn't kind to dinosaurs. Ultimately, one learns how to scoop up handfuls of "what is," and to form them up and breathe life into these forms, and see if they hold.

This is what your education is attempting to prepare YOU to do. The best thing you can do is abandon prejudice, and participate wholeheartedly.

B.


----------



## DVincent (Apr 30, 2008)

I, too, would encourage you (or any young composer) to reconsider music composition studies. If not at a university then with a private instructor. I have heard the music on your site, Alex. I think you have talent and potential, but could benefit from a more critical analysis of your own music. I am sorry to hear about your experience at a university. 

My experience at US universities was much different. I never felt anybody was trying to make me compose in a certain way or in any way restricting me. I enjoyed the stylistic composing assignments even if what I wrote was academic and largely uninteresting. It allowed me to explore new techniques, some of which I was able to integrate my own way in my composing style. I was exposed to new works and tried to learn something from every one of them. One particular instance, a composer/percussionist played a work for snare drum. He elicited various squeaks and scratches from that drum. It stimulated my creative juices with all kinds of film scoring and sound design applications - for about 5 minutes. Fifteen minutes later I began to slump in my chair... After an hour I was desperately searching for the exit! I stuck with the work and it ended eventually. What did I learn from this? How a composition can overstay its welcome. Even the best ideas can become boring. 

My experience with many of my fellow students was not so favorable. Many didn't want to try new techniques, new harmonies, or even different keys. For an instructor to ask them to edit a piece after it was composed was a near sin! There seemed to be a fantastical idea among them that a composer sat down at a piano and started at bar one and was complete when they reached the _fine_ engraved on the sketch pad. Composing needed inspiration not effort. Any pre-composition work involved pulling out the piano bench and lifting the hands to the keyboard. Composition consisted of playing what was already comfortable and familiar to the hands and to follow one's whims until the creator grew tired of the sound of that piece. End on the tonic and slap on a _fine - voila!_ As an intellectually written piece sounds dry and intellectual, a piece written this way sounds like the manner in which it was constructed. Like a meandering collection of essentially diatonic pitches with little organizational concept. There is nothing wrong with this kind of music, but if one wants to _only_ write in this style they don't need to attend a conservatory.

Honestly, Alex, if you would like to chat further about our academic experiences or music in general send me an IM. We've hijacked this post for far too long already. Maybe I could talk you into taking some private lessons with an instructor who has similar musical tastes as you. I would like nothing more than to see you become the composer you could be, not just the one you accept you are.

Derek


----------



## nikolas (May 1, 2008)

almacg @ Thu May 01 said:


> > Never mind that I'm NOW having trouble with the degrees that I got and will get (MMus and PhD), this is a different story and a very bitter one (if you want I can share this as well).
> 
> 
> 
> I was considering maybe studying on my own, and then applying for a higher degree. If you don't mind explaining a little about the problems you are experiencing now, I would be grateful. (Unless of course it's something that's too emotional to talk about!?)


It is rather bitter, but I can explain, it's no secret.

I came to the UK with a diploma in piano (which is higher than a degree), a degree in harmony and one in counterpoint. I applied for a Masters and go it, not to 1 but 3 universities, from which I picked one (royal holloway). After getting my MMus with distinction I carried on to a Phd (finishing 3rd year now). All this with the support of a scholarship foundation in Greece. Backed up by the Greek goverment then!

In Xmas, I went to get my Masters recognised as equal to a Greek masters and I was told that it can't be done! Since I don't have an undergraduate degree, I can't possibly get a postgraduate, never mind that I have actually! Greece will NOT recognise my MMus or my PhD, no matter what, simply because I've not done a bachelors!

So in short: Greece is paying me to study something I won't be able to use (teach) in Greece. Hillarious, huh?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 1, 2008)

Don't they have equivalency tests or correspondence courses? You can become a minister by mail - you'd think someone in Greece would have something like that for a BS degree.

I guess it's still a new country, though, so maybe that's the problem...


----------



## nikolas (May 1, 2008)

lol...

Their problem lies that in Greece you CAN'T (yet) get a postgraduate without an undergraduate, so they can't equale... it to anything.

Pretty messy I tell you! And imagine that they've given me a total of around $65,000 up to now, in order to study! :o


----------



## poseur (May 1, 2008)

nikolas @ Thu May 01 said:


> So in short: Greece is paying me to study something I won't be able to use (teach) in Greece. Hillarious, huh?


nikolas, that's terrible!
i feel for you.
d


----------



## almacg (May 3, 2008)

Hi nikolas, sorry to hear about that!

Is it possible that you could take a graded exam (grade 9 and up) in piano? Wouldn't that count as a BMus (not 100% sure... but worth a look). Also I think taking graded theory exams might equate to a BMus (again not sure but worth checking out!). 

My nan tried to get a grade 9 in piano way back and I think it was actually the equivalent of a degree. It's not actually called a grade 9, it's something like RLM.. I'll find out for you if you want!


----------



## Dave Connor (May 3, 2008)

As a composition major I experienced a sort of mixed bag of things from very free composing of whatever you wanted to ansi 4tran computer programming (where I was totally lost and grieved about doing something so far away from my preference.) However the computer generated music (before midi) I did hear from the world class composers of the day was absolutley great.

All that is to say that whatever the benefits or failings of university level composition, private study is (to me) quantum above the classroom. I learned a hundred times more from (Los Angeles legend)Hal Johnson than any class. So unless you need a degree for whatever reason than the door is open wide for a stellar education if you can find someone who teaches traditional composition and beyond.


----------



## dcoscina (May 4, 2008)

I wrote a piece for the NOTION contest last year that was pretty much built on quartal harmony. I found that Bartok used a lot of this in his Concerto For Orchestra and I wanted to write a piece that also exploited this. It didn't seem to go down too well so this year I'm focussing on happy simple chords that we all know and love- I have to limit my use of harmonic extensions like 7ths, 11ths, 13ths, you know, those icky thick chords that no one really cares about.

Either that or do a symphonic jazz piece that basically won't be liked and won't get played but at least will challenge me. yeah, I think I'll do that.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (May 4, 2008)

> So unless you need a degree for whatever reason than the door is open wideòP³   xq…P³   xq†P³   xq‡P³   xqˆP³   xq‰P³   xqŠP³   xq‹P³   xqŒP³   xqP³   xqŽP³   xqP³   xqP³   xq‘P³   xq’P³   xq“P³   xq”P³   xq•P³   xq–P³   xq—P³   xq˜P³   xq™P³   xqšP³   xq›P³   xqœP³   xqP³   xqžP³   xqŸP³   xq P³   xq¡P³   xq¢P³   xq£P³   xq¤P³   xq¥P³   xq¦P³   xq§P³   xq¨P³   xq©P³   xqªP³   xq«P³   xq¬P³   xq­P³   xq®P³   xq¯P³   xq°P³   xq±P³   xq²P³   xq³P³   xq´P³   xqµP³   xq¶P³   xq·P³   xq¸P³   xq¹P³   xqºP³   xq»P³   xq¼P³   xq½P³   xq¾P³   xq¿P³   xqÀP³   xqÁP³   xqÂP³   xqÃP³   xqÄP³   xqÅP³   xqÆP´   xqÇP´   xqÈP´   xqÉP´   xqÊP´   xqËP´   xqÌP´   xqÍP´   xqÎP´   xqÏP´   xqÐP´   xqÑP´   xqÒPµ   xqÓPµ   xqÔPµ   xqÕPµ   xqÖPµ   xq×Pµ   xqØPµ   xqÙPµ   xqÚPµ   xqÛPµ   xqÜPµ   xqÝPµ   xqÞPµ   xqßPµ   xqàPµ   xqáPµ   xqâPµ   xqãPµ   xqäPµ   xqåPµ   xqæPµ   xqçPµ   xqèPµ   xqéPµ   xqêPµ   xqëPµ   xqìPµ   xqíPµ   xqîPµ   xqïPµ   xqðPµ   xqñPµ   xqòPµ   xqóPµ   xqô              òPµ   xqöPµ   xq÷Pµ   xqøPµ   xqùPµ   xqúPµ   xqûPµ   xqüPµ   xqýPµ   xq


----------



## Dave Connor (May 4, 2008)

Very good points Bruce and I agree in the value of all that. My point was the very narrow issue of composition. If for whatever reason someone cannot attend a University it doesn't mean they cannot become a first rate composer through private study. It's been done before and certainly can be done again. I would reccomend going to school for all the reasons you mentioned having gone for seven years myself. Nonetheless I was ill equiped comparitively speaking in composition with private lessons opening up the height, depth and breath of it all, so-to-speak.


----------



## Sid_Barnhoorn (May 5, 2008)

Just a personal note: Polytonal and quartal techniques among others are not instinct in my book. I use those techniques alot when applicable.

Cheers,
Siddhartha Barnhoorn


----------

