Best software for an aspiring composer

[Bollen]

It's my favourite classical piece - and trust me, I've listened to all of them. I love it even more than anything Beethoven or Mozart composed. It's passion, it's obsession, it's perfection.

I did a search for Palladio on YouTube and clicked on the top video.

Here are some of the comments I found:

"I need more classical music like this. It has a sense of calmness yet is still energetic and dramatic. Magnificent."

"I turned the radio on in the car and came across this piece of music it was so awesome I got to my destination but parked up and waited to find out who it is. Thank you for sharing this Love your video too absolutely perfect for the music "

"Thanks a lot for your comment Lynne, it was almost the same story for me. I came across this piece when I was in a museum in Germany and this fantastic piece suddenly came on the museum's playlist. I was immediately hooked."

"Same for me today. I was listening to classic fm and the sound system in my car is fantastic so I turned it up...wow. I know it has been over played on tv add`s etc but I think it is my new favourite classical tune."

"Ah I love this song so much!! There's just something about it, what a wonderful piece. This is definitely one of those songs I could listen to over an over."

"Just listened to it in music class today for the first time...I love it!!!"

"started listening to this because my class is playing it in orchestra but then i grew to really like it"

"The end gives me goosebumps every time"

"I just love this song so much that I HAD to ask my ballet teacher for this. I first couldn't find it but I'm soooo happy that I have found it!!!! Now I can use this music for warming up home too ))))"

"Wow,,,,What a niece piece ,,,Wow,,,,Superb"

"I agree, it's one of those pieces that when one listens to doesn't easily stop "

"I know better than to read comments, yet some say this is not classical music, it is alchemy, same 12 notes many octaves, yet music by definition has an ease to the ear. I defy anyone to not admit this. How about imagine writing this yourself, sillies, then appreciate the genius this is. Pure spirit."

This is the video I pulled the comments from:

However, just to give you another perspective:

"Not sure I'm liking it that much. Some repetitions (along with the performance like in the harp piece) seem almost like film music. Very smooth but I'm not sure how deep.

I'm going to sing the Armed Man this spring. And this music is to me unoriginal and boring. Nothing exciting about it! This guy should stick to film score or pop music.

Err... I'm not sure that this should be classed as 'classical' or 'art music'. It might use orchestral instruments, but the rest of it kind of disqualifies the music :/ To me, it just sounds like an orchestrator's arrangement of some tunes that an aspiring 15-year-old musician weaved on a piano in 10 minutes. In all honesty, listening to the Dies Irae from his 'Requiem' (not provided in the OP), I both cringed and laughed.

I also think it's quite indicative of this man's style that his Palladio was used in a performance by an electronic string quartet for Britain's Got Talent...

The music struck me as amateurish in many ways... a pop musician taking a stab at the classical genre... far too "new age" in sound. I am open to music that bridges the gap between genre such as Osvaldo Golijov, William Bolcom, John Zorn, Anouar Brahem, and others... but Jenkins just didn't hit the mark in my book.

I agree. It's all pretty dreadful as far as I am concerned. It's not classical music as I understand it. "

 

[mducharme]

It's my favourite classical piece - and trust me, I've listened to all of them. I love it even more than anything Beethoven or Mozart composed. It's passion, it's obsession, it's perfection.

I don't agree - that doesn't invalidate your opinion of course, but I just don't agree. Showing a bunch of comments from people who like it isn't going to make me change my mind. You may like it better than anything Beethoven or Mozart composed, and that's also fine, but it is certainly not in the same league as their works.

 

[theaviv]

However, just to give you another perspective:

"Not sure I'm liking it that much. Some repetitions (along with the performance like in the harp piece) seem almost like film music. Very smooth but I'm not sure how deep.

I'm going to sing the Armed Man this spring. And this music is to me unoriginal and boring. Nothing exciting about it! This guy should stick to film score or pop music.

Err... I'm not sure that this should be classed as 'classical' or 'art music'. It might use orchestral instruments, but the rest of it kind of disqualifies the music :/ To me, it just sounds like an orchestrator's arrangement of some tunes that an aspiring 15-year-old musician weaved on a piano in 10 minutes. In all honesty, listening to the Dies Irae from his 'Requiem' (not provided in the OP), I both cringed and laughed.

I also think it's quite indicative of this man's style that his Palladio was used in a performance by an electronic string quartet for Britain's Got Talent...

The music struck me as amateurish in many ways... a pop musician taking a stab at the classical genre... far too "new age" in sound. I am open to music that bridges the gap between genre such as Osvaldo Golijov, William Bolcom, John Zorn, Anouar Brahem, and others... but Jenkins just didn't hit the mark in my book.

I agree. It's all pretty dreadful as far as I am concerned. It's not classical music as I understand it. "

Gotta find your audience, I guess.

Not everybody likes Taylor Swift either, but you can't deny she's one of the most successful music artists in history.

Likewise, "Karl Jenkins is one of the most performed living composers in the world" - and something tells me it's mostly because of Palladio.

 

[Willowtree]

It's my favourite classical piece - and trust me, I've listened to all of them. I love it even more than anything Beethoven or Mozart composed. It's passion, it's obsession, it's perfection.

Those are fancy buzz words oozing with affect. Jenkins is a fine composer and makes catchy pieces, not surprising since he's a former jingle writer. But I would hardly call Jenkins'
music representative of contemporary classical music. It has far more in common with new age if anything.

It's catchy music with its roots in rock, jazz, pop and jingles. Does that somehow mean it has less merit? No, of course not. But to compare Palladio to Beethoven and Mozart is a bit silly. It has far more in common with pop and advertisement music (in fact, that was the piece's original purpose: advertisement) than it does with classical music.

And there's nothing wrong with liking that, but let's not get the two confused. @mducharme also made very valid points above.

Gotta find your audience, I guess.

Not everybody likes Taylor Swift either, but you can't deny she's one of the most successful music artists in history.

Likewise, "Karl Jenkins is one of the most performed living composers in the world" - and something tells me it's mostly because of Palladio.

Actually, he was an active musician all the way back in the 70s, as a rock musician, rising to prominence as a jingle writer in the 80s. Outside of advertisement, he didn't become all that big until a decade and a half ago, with his new age project Adiemus.

I don't think Palladio has much to do with his success at all. Adiemus is his big work. He was successful by current standards as early as the 80s, though.

 

[Willowtree]

I do want to add that with the statement "to compare Palladio to Beethoven and Mozart is a bit silly" I'm not talking about some sort of "merit" or saying "it can't compare to the greatness of those ol' composers!"

What I'm saying is, Palladio was borne from advertisement in the 90s, draws from a very different style than anything Beethoven or Mozart made.

Then again, based on that statement one could argue it has at least a little in common with Mozart.

My point is, they're so far apart and should be applauded for their own merits, not compared to each other like ... Apples and oranges, if you forgive the expression.

 

[mducharme]

Mozart and Beethoven's music is undoubtedly in a different league than film composers I love, such as Jerry Goldsmith, James Horner, and John Williams. However, I find that I listen to more Goldsmith/Horner/Williams than I do Mozart/Beethoven. Often I just like to listen to pieces that I enjoy, even though they aren't really "masterworks" in comparison. I think that's the case with a lot of people.

 

[Bollen]

Gotta find your audience, I guess.

Not everybody likes Taylor Swift either, but you can't deny she's one of the most successful music artists in history.

Likewise, "Karl Jenkins is one of the most performed living composers in the world" - and something tells me it's mostly because of Palladio.

Depends what you mean by success...

 

[Willowtree]

Depends what you mean by success...

Success is found within and is personal. Moat other definitions, particularly material ones or those related to popularity, will only lead to emptiness.

And that concludes philosophy 101.

Though indeed, if you define success by material gain or popularity, you will likely be left empty.

 

[theaviv]

But I would hardly call Jenkins' music representative of contemporary classical music. It has far more in common with new age if anything.

What music would you say is representative of contemporary classical music?

To be honest, Palladio is the only piece I like by Jenkins. I can't find any other piece by him that I like.

But to compare Palladio to Beethoven and Mozart is a bit silly. It has far more in common with pop and advertisement music (in fact, that was the piece's original purpose: advertisement) than it does with classical music.

Well, if you google "palladio genre", a big infobox appears with the word "Classical" in large font. Besides, to my ears, it sounds classical.

Again, here are some comments left by the general public on YouTube:

"So amazingly beautiful ! Reminds me a little bit Vivaldi. Paintings perfectly matching the music."

"For the longest time, I assumed this piece was Vivaldi. Only learned about Jenkins a few years ago. What a talent!"

"Amazing like "Vivaldi" ore "rondo veniziano".... Thanks for uploading."

"When I originally heard this piece I thought I was listening to something comoosed by a contemporary of Vivaldi (1678-1741) and Albinoni(1671-1750),not a composer born in 1944.."

"Vivaldi, Albinoni and Pachelbel would be honored!"

Agree or disagree, this is at least how some classical fans perceive it.

 

[theaviv]

Though indeed, if you define success by material gain or popularity, you will likely be left empty.

To me, success is when your audience can feel what you feel.

Taylor Swift has millions of fans feel what she feels through her music.

You will be left empty if your audience never understands your work. You may not want to believe it, but art is a social thing by nature. If you only create art for yourself, you will never reach your full potential. Magic happens when you have an audience to create for, even if it's just one person. God created everyone because he wanted an audience.

 

[Bollen]

To me, success is when your audience can feel what you feel.

Taylor Swift has millions of fans feel what she feels through her music.

You will be left empty if your audience never understands your work. You may not want to believe it, but art is a social thing by nature. If you only create art for yourself, you will never reach your full potential. Magic happens when you have an audience to create for, even if it's just one person. God created everyone because he wanted an audience.

Ah! Well that's very commendable too!

When I decided to become a "classical" composer I made an agreement with myself that I would only write for a future that might never be... And certainly one I would never see. Musicians commission all the time, I'm flattered that they want my music, but they do this every season. My music might never be played again, ever! I might disappear into history just like everyone or become immortal like the "greats"! To up my chances I haven't relied on just my " talent" nor my over-education (as some of my colleagues say), but also on listening to Boulez and Stockhausen (despite hating their music) to the point I had it memorised note by note. And also the minimalist and over-complexity types, so that I could make sure my ear and musical brain was up to date. So that even if I try to write like my heroes, my influence would be so much broader than them, I would be force to write like ME. A creature living in the 21st century that might love Debussy, but has heard everything that happened in the 20th century and beyond...

It's almost like being a monk...

 

[Willowtree]

This ended up a particularly lengthy post, so apologies for that.

What music would you say is representative of contemporary classical music?

To be honest, Palladio is the only piece I like by Jenkins. I can't find any other piece by him that I like.



Well, if you google "palladio genre", a big infobox appears with the word "Classical" in large font. Besides, to my ears, it sounds classical.

Before we get further into arguing semantics, I want to make it clear my statement that Palladio is less contemporary classical is my own viewpoint, and I'm sure some will disagree. A curious thing you'll see when you read the comments is several others make statements similar to mine, and several others make statements that directly contradict mine.

Anyhow, to me, much of the contemporary classical music I'm surrounded by is technically complex, not very catchy, and requires a very good understanding of music to be fully enjoyed. On the other hand, Palladio could be enjoyed by anyone regardless of musical knowledge.

In other words, contemporary classical music tends to be made for composers by composers, whereas music such as Palladio is made for the general population.

I suppose it's a matter of where the music comes from, to me. A lot of music today (Palladio is an example) draws a lot more from popular music and folk music than it does from classical music of the past.

We also have our backgrounds. I use the term the way it's been used by my mentors, teachers and people around me. I care little for what random people on the internet think about the term as long as we're able to communicate. That's the important part. So, when we say classical, you and I may mean different things. Just want to clear that up. We may be using the same term to talk about very different things.

Again, it's easy to come off as a bit arrogant with an "I'm in the right!" attitude online, but that's not my intention at all, so apologies if it's come off that way. I have great respect for your generally pleasant behaviour in this thread, so thank you for that.

Anyhow, this is getting lengthy. Check these out:

• Oresteia by Iannis Xenakis (1966)
• Kontra-punkte by Karlheinz Stockhausen (1953)
• I Fall by Eric Whitacre (2017)

I particularly recommend I Fall.

To me, success is when your audience can feel what you feel.

Taylor Swift has millions of fans feel what she feels through her music.

You will be left empty if your audience never understands your work. You may not want to believe it, but art is a social thing by nature. If you only create art for yourself, you will never reach your full potential. Magic happens when you have an audience to create for, even if it's just one person. God created everyone because he wanted an audience.

I don't share your definition of success, and I often make music that I know will make others feel very differently than me. If my music makes people feel the way I want it to make them feel, I've succeeded regardless of how I feel.

Additionally, we don't know how Taylor Swift feels. Chances are, she doesn't feel anything remotely resembling what her fans does. Or maybe she does. Who knows!

I don't require my audience to understand my work, I require the client to be pleased and I require my music to augment my client's work. If I'm making music for my own projects, I require it to make me pleased, which in extent will likely make my audience pleased.

That's just my perspective though, and if your definition of success works for you, that's great and that's the important part. If mine doesn't work for you, discard it and stick to your own definition. And thank you for sharing your definition even if I don't share that viewpoint.

It's almost like being a monk...

Speaking as someone who once considered becoming a Buddhist nun (it's a long story), I feel that this sentence was surprisingly accurate to what it's like working with music these days. :')

 

[mducharme]

I agree with the above, but also have a slightly different view. Contemporary classical music is most often meant to challenge the listener - it may cause them to ask fundamental questions like what is and what is not music. Composers often use program notes to help bring the listener to the halfway point, or giving a good explanation for what the audience should expect, but they should come the rest of the way. Some of it is more challenging than others - obviously the Whitacre is erring towards "universally accessible" in contemporary classical, but he is still part of the contemporary classical camp.

If you look at something like film music or pop music, it has very different requirements. It has to be immediately accessible to basically everybody. With pop music people will change the track if they don't like it early on, film music if you do stuff that is too weird the emotions can become jumbled in the cue. So in both cases you need a much more direct and accessible approach. And there is nothing wrong with that.

With contemporary classical music, there is a saying "writing down to the audience", meaning "I know I can write much better music than this, but I am writing much much simpler than usual so as to not challenge the listener in any regard and simply please them". Although there is nothing fundamentally wrong with wanting to please people, classical composers generally haven't been concerned with pleasing the audience as the first and foremost duty since Mozart's times. The other more crass way of saying this to an audience (nobody would actually say it this way) would be "You are too uncultured to understand my music, so I am going to write stupid simple stuff that I hate writing and is beneath me so that your brains can understand it without being challenged, even though I am capable of more." Since contemporary classical music generally implies that "challenge the listener" approach to some degree, the approach of "writing down to the audience" is fundamentally incompatible.

Many or most contemporary classical composers feel like they are wasting their abilities if they deliberately make their music worse (in their own view) to make it more palatable to the masses (by being unchallenging). Jenkins writes down to the audience and makes a lot of money from it.

 

[mducharme]

An analogy in fine arts - suppose artists never went in the direction of things like cubism, surrealism, impressionism etc. because they thought they thought they would be too weird for people who just wanted to look at realistic portrait paintings, and "painted down" to the masses who would view them. Imagine how much great art would have never existed.

 

[Willowtree]

I agree with the above, but also have a slightly different view. Contemporary classical music is most often meant to challenge the listener - it may cause them to ask fundamental questions like what is and what is not music.

This is true, my statement that contemporary classical music was by composers for composers was by far too generalised. And indeed, one doesn't need to be a composer to enjoy it (I had a brilliant mentor once who'd never consider himself a composer, merely an analyst, performer and occasional arranger).

obviously the Whitacre is erring towards "universally accessible" in contemporary classical, but he is still part of the contemporary classical camp.

Quite true. One can of course compare Xenakis' choirs to Whitacre and it's no contest. Whitacre may be more accessible, and he's a brilliant composer in his own right. But Xenakis was a musical genius and his music indeed challenged a younger me's understanding of music and caused me to reevaluate what music is.

film music if you do stuff that is too weird the emotions can become jumbled in the cue.

Everything you said is true, but I'd like to add that (for example) Lord of the Rings has a lot of elements most would consider unfamiliar, but it's executed so well it serves to enhance the otherworldliness of the films. Despite that, you can tell what stuck with audiences. You don't see the general audience talking about the use of the Piccolo as a signifier for the alluring power of the Ring. They talk about how "epic" the Moria sequence is, or how pleasant the Concerning Hobbits tune is.

But even then, it's highly unusual for a film score. The Moria sequence uses very unusual orchestration and instrumentation (8 Trumpets, for example), and despite the pleasant sound, Concerning Hobbits is quite dissonant.

Point is, @theaviv, you can do unusual things in music for media, but the more blockbuster something gets, the more "AAA" something gets, as a general rule, it gets more consonant, the chord progressions become simpler, and the orchestration more typical.

Not sure if mducharme agrees with this, but either way I'm interested to hear his further viewpoint, should he share it.

Jenkins writes down to the audience and makes a lot of money from it.

Often, I feel that writing down to the audience is a skill of its own.

An analogy in fine arts - suppose artists never went in the direction of things like cubism, surrealism, impressionism etc. because they thought they thought they would be too weird for people who just wanted to look at realistic portrait paintings, and "painted down" to the masses who would view them. Imagine how much great art would have never existed.

Quite true. More on that, there does seem to be almost two camps of composers: those of us who view it as an art worthy of study and analysis, and those who are simply using it as a tool, with an analysis or study being incidental and only practical.

An analogy to this would perhaps be that some of us are (in how we conceptualise ourselves) artists, and some of us are craftsmen. I suspect most of us participating in this thread belong to the former category, but I'm inclined to view it as a bit of an (imaginary) spectrum between art and craft.

 

[mducharme]

Often, I feel that writing down to the audience is a skill of its own.

Oh absolutely. With film work I find the hardest thing is getting the theme right. It is such a tricky balance - if the theme is too simple it is not unique and identifiable enough, but if it is too complicated you get into the situation where now it is becoming unique but less catchy, too convoluted. Building the theme entirely on a good motif and having an identifiable head motif is so critical. There is a sweet spot in between where often it feels like 5 notes are too many, 4 notes are not enough etc. It really takes a lot of practice and work to finesse a theme to make it really stand out and be catchy.

I compose both contemporary classical and film music, and so I really have two styles that are quite different. I approach both in a fundamentally different way. Although music need not be designed to communicate emotion and may be more intellectual and abstract in that sense (which is also valid), contemporary classical music often (to me) excels at communicating dark emotions (anger, fear, etc) but rarely communicates more "happy" emotions. I start getting depressed if I listen to (or compose) nothing but dark sounding contemporary classical all the time. Listening to and writing film music gives me a bit of a break, being able to write something happy or beautiful for a change.

 

[Willowtree]

Oh absolutely. With film work I find the hardest thing is getting the theme right. It is such a tricky balance - if the theme is too simple it is not unique and identifiable enough, but if it is too complicated you get into the situation where now it is becoming unique but less catchy, too convoluted. Building the theme entirely on a good motif and having an identifiable head motif is so critical. There is a sweet spot in between where often it feels like 5 notes are too many, 4 notes are not enough etc. It really takes a lot of practice and work to finesse a theme to make it really stand out and be catchy.

I compose both contemporary classical and film music, and so I really have two styles that are quite different. I approach both in a fundamentally different way. Although music need not be designed to communicate emotion and may be more intellectual and abstract in that sense (which is also valid), contemporary classical music often (to me) excels at communicating dark emotions (anger, fear, etc) but rarely communicates more "happy" emotions. I start getting depressed if I listen to (or compose) nothing but dark sounding contemporary classical all the time. Listening to and writing film music gives me a bit of a break, being able to write something happy or beautiful for a change.

Outside of my personal projects, most of my paid composition work has been in creating themes for various characters or cues for board game groups (which pays about as well as you'd expect) and some cues for smaller video games. Otherwise, I've mostly worked as an arranger or consultant for composers.

My experience in composing for film is therefore not only limited, but thus far nonexistent, unless you count some student short films. I'm too young and haven't been in this industry professionally long enough for that (or, that is what I tell myself at the very least).

Thus, most of my perspectives on film music comes from mentors, teachers and friends (as well as intense study of film scores). This is very valuable insight, thank you. I've been in the talks of scoring an art film in France (I don't speak French, but I'm friends with the director), and while that's certainly a different audience, this is very useful, thank you.

I no longer compose contemporary classical unless I know that it's going to be performed. Sampling hasn't gotten to the degree of realism that I feel it's worth the effort.

 

[Michaelt]

contemporary classical music often (to me) excels at communicating dark emotions (anger, fear, etc) but rarely communicates more "happy" emotions.

Sorry to push into this conversation, but that got me thinking.

Does contemporary classical music rarely communicate more happy emotions, or does it do that almost as often, only for those pieces to be frequently written off as conservative/accessible and thus not fit to be categorized with "serious" contemporary classical music in the first place?

Even outside of media music, I think there are plenty of modern composers who quite successfully say things on the more positive end of the emotional spectrum. The thorny, anguished sound of many composers from the latter half of the 20th century is the product of their time and place. I always think of Steve Reich talking about how absurd it would feel to write like someone who was living in war-torn Europe while actually living in the world of a million burgers sold.

Not to say that those of us here and now have nothing dark to communicate as well, but I think that's an important way to understand the "softening" of musical language in recent decades, and to accept its validity. It can still be done poorly, like anything else, but when done right, it's just as worthy of admiration as anything by whichever master from the distant past you wish to name.

...not sure what my point was. Over and out.

 

[mducharme]

Does contemporary classical music rarely communicate more happy emotions, or does it do that almost as often, only for those pieces to be frequently written off as conservative/accessible and thus not fit to be categorized with "serious" contemporary classical music in the first place?

In some cases I believe that happens to some extent, yes (being written off as conservative).

However, I think where the real problem comes in is, when you are writing in a more accessible style, there is this temptation or trap to fall into where you start writing in a 1900's or 1800's (or 1700's or 1600's) style, or some combination of those (as I believe Jenkins does in Palladio), seemingly completely ignoring everything that happened in the 20th and 21st centuries, almost pretending they did not exist. Copying an antiquated style wholesale is not really very innovative like contemporary classical is supposed to be - it is instead anachronistic, just writing a piece a few hundred years out of time. So if you are dealing with more tonal materials, you face the challenge of how to reflect modern times and accept the music of the 20th (and 21st) century and be innovative in some way while still being fundamentally tonal. Reich does that with his rhythms and evolving patterns (which were slightly influenced by much older Perotin and Leonin style Notre Dame organum from medieval times), Whitacre does it with his diatonic clusters. But it is more difficult to pull off successfully (vs simply writing "darker" stuff) because we have the baggage of common practice period music being dragged along with us that is subconsciously influencing us all the time, and tempting us to simply mimic it instead of creating something innovative. It is like you have this big trap in the ground, and some composers dance around it successfully without falling in, while others stay far away.

 

[Michaelt]

Yes, I agree! I think that sums up the challenges facing any composer in 2019 very well.