How to escape the I IV V trap!
lwr...@my-dejanews.com
I keep writing songs that almost always end up using chord sequences that
include I IV V. Any ideas on how to learn more so that I can avoid this
problem?
Cheers,
Larry
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Noam D. Elkies
>I keep writing songs that almost always end up using chord sequences that
>include I IV V. Any ideas on how to learn more so that I can avoid this
>problem?
By itself it's not a problem -- no more so than "I keep writing
sentences that almost always end up using the word 'and'".
[Like "and", I-IV-V is a basic part of the tonal vocabulary.]
But if you're worried about becoming enslaved to I-IV-V, one
radical approach is to try writing a song that does not include
(say) IV at all. That does not mean that you must only use I and V,
though even that's an option: look at Chopin's Berceuse or Ravel's
Bolero (in Bolero a few other chords appear at the end, and it's
a marvelous coup), or (in minor mode) Schubert's song Der Leiermann
which might even be interpreted as 61 measures of I. Then try an
entire song without V. For a real challenge try doing it without I,
or (more reasonably) delaying the I until the very end -- Brahms
has a canonical example of this in the intermezzo from Op.76(?)
in B-flat.
--Noam D. Elkies (remove V from e-mail address to respond)
Larisa Migachyov
:Hello,
:
:I keep writing songs that almost always end up using chord sequences that
:include I IV V. Any ideas on how to learn more so that I can avoid this
:problem?
Try playing with other chord sequences - not necessarily fitting a melody
to them, but just playing with chords that might or might not go anywhere.
Then, when you find a chord sequence that is not I IV V, fit a melody to
it. There are many options for chord sequences that are out there.
--
Larisa Migachyov *Do not go gentle into this good night.
Biomechanical Engineering *Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Stanford University *Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
http://www.stanford.edu/~lvm
Tony T. Warnock
between. For example: I vi IV V. (Another trap perhaps.) Substituting yields I vi
ii V, then playing with secondary dominants: I III7 vi II7 V7, etc. Then try
modulation and sequence.
Tony
Samuel Hogarth
of , as follows:
>Hello,
>
>I keep writing songs that almost always end up using chord sequences that
>include I IV V. Any ideas on how to learn more so that I can avoid this
>problem?
>
>
>Larry
It's hard to advise without some clue as to what style you're writing
in. Most of this post is primarily relevant to jazz, but a lot of the
principles can be applied across the board.
As a general thing try the cycle of fifths:
IV-vii-iii-vi-ii-V-I
In G major the most reasonable interpretation of this would be:
Cmaj-F#mb5-B7-E-Am-D-G
Use tritone substitutions:
Cmaj-F#mb5-B7-Bb7-Am-Ab7-G
Use inversions or harmonically similar substitutes:
Em-Am-F#dim-E7-Am-D-G
Alternatively
-------------
Mess about with some accepted sequences, such as I Got Rhythm (I am a
little shaky on this, but basically):
I |ii V |I |ii V |
I vi |ii V |iii vi|ii V :||
(vii) |III |(iii) |VI |
(vi) |II |(ii) |V |
I |ii V |I |ii V |
I vi |ii V |iii vi|ii V ||
The chords in brackets during the bridge are sometimes omitted, and the
following chord comes a bar earlier.
The thing about these 'Rhythm Changes' is that you can do all kinds of
things with them - possibly based on stuff like Tritone Substitutions
that I suggested before - and they are very flexible. BTW, originally
the above sequence is in Bb.
As far as the more classical side goes - although I suspect from what
you say about writing songs you are less likely to be on this side - I
can't really advise because my own classical style is quite contemporary
and I don't see any point, except for the purposes of learning classical
theory, of writing in an outdated idiom.
Samuel Hogarth
'It's not my fault, I'm only ickle'
(to reply, replace 'up' with 'down')
Dr.Matt
>
>I keep writing songs that almost always end up using chord sequences that
>include I IV V. Any ideas on how to learn more so that I can avoid this
>problem?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Larry
>
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Conciously decide to use other chords. Force yourself to save I for the
end of the piece. Try moving from I to VI. Play Beethoven's Waldstein
Sonata and glean from it some alternative directions your music might take.
Do the same with the rest of Beethoven's 32 sonatas.
--
Matt Fields, DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
"It demonstrates that you hail straight from the gutter, which in turn
means that any arguments that you make will appeal only to guttersnipes."
--Albert Silverman | http://e-scrub.com/cgi-bin/wpoison/wpoison.cgi
Steve Chandler
firmly in cheek let me offer some more.
Play *Louie, Louie* so many times you're absolutely sick of it, at that point
play it yourself on an instrument a several more times. You'll be craving
anything but I, IV and V when you're done.
After that listen to some of the great music of the repertoire from Bach to
Stravinsky to Bartok, i.e Baroque to early modern (which still has
recognizeable chord progressions). As you listen isolate chord
progressions/modulations that appeal to you and dictate them. When you have
25 - 50 play through the list and see what inspires you to add to it.
Then see if you have the stomach to go back to Louie, Louie.
Steve Chandler
MidiOpera Co.
one.......I particularly like Dr. Matt's suggestion to read the 32
Beethoven sonatas although that can be an intimidating proposal. Might
want to stop at the Waldstein.
Forget the chords, write the melody and harmonize it. Also....write in a
key you don't normally use forcing you to use your ears not your
established MO.
RS
--
Robert Steinberg
MidiOpera Co.
http://www.tcol.net/midiopra/
Abram Plum
>
> In article <744166$33q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <lwr...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >I keep writing songs that almost always end up using chord sequences that
> >include I IV V. Any ideas on how to learn more so that I can avoid this
> >problem?
> >
> Conciously decide to use other chords. Force yourself to save I for the
> end of the piece. Try moving from I to VI. Play Beethoven's Waldstein
> Sonata and glean from it some alternative directions your music might take.
> Do the same with the rest of Beethoven's 32 sonatas.
>
> --
Also look at Brahm's Intermezzo, Op. 76, No. 4 (in Bb Major) as a good
example of how to avoid over obvious chord progressions. The first tonic
triad in this 55 measure piece occurs (unstressed) in measure 43, and
there is no clear authentic (V-I) cadence in the tonic key in the whole
piece.
Abram Plum
-
Samuel Vriezen
>Hello,
>
>I keep writing songs that almost always end up using chord sequences that
>include I IV V. Any ideas on how to learn more so that I can avoid this
>problem?
I believe that any chord sequence can be made musical if you take care
to think of good voice leading. Perhaps you could experiment with
that: write lots of chords on slips of paper, put them in a random
order, and try to figure out how to space the chords so that they
sound logical.
This will also stretch your idea of what harmony is and what is
acceptable.
Just a thought.
Samuel
Noam D. Elkies
Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>As far as the more classical side goes - although I suspect from what
>you say about writing songs you are less likely to be on this side - I
>can't really advise because my own classical style is quite contemporary
>and I don't see any point, except for the purposes of learning classical
>theory, of writing in an outdated idiom.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Outdated? Don't believe it; yet another case of an exaggerated
death rumor. Consider:
@ These idioms continue to be the musical mother tongue of most
classical musicians: even Bartok's and Shostakovich's string
quartets have not displaced the central place of Beethoven's
in the education of a contemporary string player, nor have the same
composers' _Mikrokosmos_ and Preludes and Fugues Op.87 replaced
Bach's Inventions and WTC for pianists -- and certainly the more
avant-garde music of this century has not come even close.
@ The music of Josquin, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and
Brahms et al. written in these idioms continues not only to
please but to deeply move (and even, to invoke another thread,
to disturb) listeners. Again, this music occupies a central place
in the repertory that Bartok still only aspires to and Stockhausen
shows no sign of approaching.
My conclusion is that, in a very real sense, common-practice
tonality has at least as strong a claim to being a *contemporary*
classical idiom as any created in our waning 20th century.
--Noam D. Elkies <elk...@marowth.harvard.edu> (remove 12-tone series to reply)
Justin Miller
> key you don't normally use forcing you to use your ears not your
> established MO.
I agree here, with the suggestion to write in a different key than
normal. I'm writing a piano piece (really, that's all I ever write)
that is in E. I don't believe I've ever written in any sharp key
before, let alone one with 4! It's also probably the best piece I've
written so far, if I must say so myself. =)
Justin Miller
David Cleary
: I keep writing songs that almost always end up using chord sequences that
: include I IV V. Any ideas on how to learn more so that I can avoid this
: problem?
If you're writing pop music, you might consider looking at the chord
progressions in some of the songs by The Beatles, Elvis Costello, early
R.E.M., and Joni Mitchell. At least IMHO, these folks found some
interesting ways to expand the harmonic palette of pop beyond I, IV, and
V.
In fact, I'd suggest studying the chord progessions in the non-chart stuff
from the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's (independent rock, "new wave," and the
like). With a few exceptions (such as Alex Chilton), these folks seem to
avoid blues-based progressions, which are clearly based on I, IV, and V.
This sometimes leads them into interesting harmonic territory. Perhaps the
most unusual band along these lines is Sonic Youth, who I'm hard-pressed
to classify as functional-harmony songwriters.
Dave
Samuel Hogarth
of Noam D. Elkies, as follows:
But this is all concerned with what people are listening to and playing.
If you're talking about that, then I wouldn't suggest for a minute that
pre-20th century idioms are outdated. However, the topic of this NG and
this thread is composition, and for compositional purposes I do consider
the classical idiom to be outdated - except, as I said in the original
post, for the purposes of learning about theory.
Noam D. Elkies
Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[I wrote, in reply to:]
>>>As far as the more classical side goes - although I suspect from what
>>>you say about writing songs you are less likely to be on this side - I
>>>can't really advise because my own classical style is quite contemporary
>>>and I don't see any point, except for the purposes of learning classical
>>>theory, of writing in an outdated idiom.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Outdated? Don't believe it; yet another case of an exaggerated
>>death rumor. Consider: [...]
>>My conclusion is that, in a very real sense, common-practice
>>tonality has at least as strong a claim to being a *contemporary*
>>classical idiom as any created in our waning 20th century.
>But this is all concerned with what people are listening to and playing.
>If you're talking about that, then I wouldn't suggest for a minute that
>pre-20th century idioms are outdated. However, the topic of this NG and
>this thread is composition, and for compositional purposes I do consider
>the classical idiom to be outdated - except, as I said in the original
>post, for the purposes of learning about theory.
And why do you "consider the classical idiom" [actually many classical
idioms -- I too conflated them in my post] to be "outdated"? As far
as I'm concerned, if there's a composer still using an idiom to write
music of worth and vitality then the idiom is _ipso facto_ current,
for compositional as well as listening and performing purposes.
--Noam D. Elkies (remove Boulez from e-address to reply)
John Ladasky
>include I IV V. Any ideas on how to learn more so that I can avoid this
>problem?
Hi, Larry,
Well, if it's just an issue of *learning*, then pick up a harmony
text. But I suspect that you know what you need to know already, you just
aren't applying it.
First, a question -- why do you always "end up" writing I IV V?
Do you start with a melody? What is characteristic of your melodies
that you feel forced in that direction?
Try not thinking about chords at all as a useful exercise. Per-
haps try two-voice writing. Compose a melody, and compose an interest-
ing (lyrical) bass line to accompany it. Nothing else. No chords. See
whether you can hear chordal implications in those two lines. Don't be
afraid to use intervals which imply that the notes of your bass line are
*not* the roots of the chords implied in what you hear. Try getting
off of the "white keys," too. If your melody is in C major, see whether
you can figure out how to sneak Bb and/or F# into that bass line and
make it sound good.
Good luck!
--
Rainforest laid low.
"Wake up and smell the ozone,"
Says man with chainsaw. - John Ladasky
Samuel Hogarth
of Noam D. Elkies, as follows:
>>If you're talking about that, then I wouldn't suggest for a minute that
>>pre-20th century idioms are outdated. However, the topic of this NG and
>>this thread is composition, and for compositional purposes I do consider
>>the classical idiom to be outdated - except, as I said in the original
>>post, for the purposes of learning about theory.
>
>And why do you "consider the classical idiom" [actually many classical
>idioms -- I too conflated them in my post] to be "outdated"? As far
>as I'm concerned, if there's a composer still using an idiom to write
>music of worth and vitality then the idiom is _ipso facto_ current,
>for compositional as well as listening and performing purposes.
Because the chances that anyone will write in a classical style in a way
that is original, or in a way that outdoes Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven,
are so slim. You can write neo-Classical music, adding a twist or a
perosnal angle on the classical style, and sound original - although
even that's been done now. You can't write I-IV-V music, with Alberti
bass and exclusively functional harmony and all the rest of it and still
be original.
Even Mozart didn't really develop a new idiom, but he was so damn good
at it that he got away with it - and of course it was still the done
thing and he was original. These days, when it is not the done thing and
most of the good ideas have already been taken, you'd have to be
absolutely exceptional to be successful as a classical writer; you'd
have to absolutely bowl people over to get them excited about music that
couldn't be stylistically original.
History never repeats itself.
Albert Silverman
Noam D. Elkies <elk...@marowth.harvard.edu> wrote:
>In article <Nrz8dQAU...@lansdown.demon.co.uk>,
>Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>As far as the more classical side goes - although I suspect from what
>>you say about writing songs you are less likely to be on this side - I
>>can't really advise because my own classical style is quite contemporary
>>and I don't see any point, except for the purposes of learning classical
>>theory, of writing in an outdated idiom.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Outdated? Don't believe it; yet another case of an exaggerated
>death rumor.
To a 14-year-old child, this music is "old-fogey" stuff. Translation:
"outdated". What should you expect?
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where 14-year-old children know EVERYTHING
--
Albert Silverman
Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>But this is all concerned with what people are listening to and playing
>pre-20th century idioms are outdated. However, the topic of this NG and
>this thread is composition, and for compositional purposes
For your belated information, one "compositional purpose" is the
_learning of music which predates the so-called "modern" period_. I
haven't the slightest idea why you think that this objective is NOT a
"compositional purpose."
I assume that it is your lack of maturity.
>I do consider
>the classical idiom to be outdated - except, as I said in the original
>post, for the purposes of learning about theory.
You have a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease!
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>Samuel Hogarth
>
>'It's not my fault, I'm only ickle'
>
>(to reply, replace 'up' with 'down')
--
Albert Silverman
Speaking of "escaping," Justin, I am STILL waiting for you to educate me
on the nature of "tonality". As you said, I know nothing about this
subject and I am desperately in need of your superior insight in this
matter.
Let's have YOUR definition of "tonality," Justin, in order to put my mind
at rest about this subject of which I know nothing.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
> >Justin Miller
--
sg...@my-dejanews.com
Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Because the chances that anyone will write in a classical style in a way
> that is original, or in a way that outdoes Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven,
> are so slim. You can write neo-Classical music, adding a twist or a
> perosnal angle on the classical style, and sound original - although
> even that's been done now. You can't write I-IV-V music, with Alberti
> bass and exclusively functional harmony and all the rest of it and still
> be original.
On the other hand, Schoenberg once said, "There's still plenty of good music
to be written in C."
Scott B.
Neal
Samuel Hogarth wrote in message ...
>At 21:11:28 on Thu, 3 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
>of Noam D. Elkies, as follows:
>
>Because the chances that anyone will write in a classical style in a way
>that is original, or in a way that outdoes Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven,
>are so slim. You can write neo-Classical music, adding a twist or a
>perosnal angle on the classical style, and sound original - although
>even that's been done now. You can't write I-IV-V music, with Alberti
>bass and exclusively functional harmony and all the rest of it and still
>be original.
Now explain why originality is important. I am dead serious. Short of
plaigarism, wouldn't it make sense to write in the older and beloved styles?
Think: which musics are most often requested by audiences? They generally
like the tonal stuff. If a composer is truly talented, they can make
tonality work. It is my dangerous opinion that a composer who must write
atonally because they fear they can't be original in tonal context is
probably not very original to start. I am NOT knocking atonal music or
modern sounds. I am not saying we should not try new things and experiment.
But I am indeed saying that if you want to earn a living as a composer you
would serve yourself well by, as some might refer to it, "selling out". I've
written things no one would pay me for because they are SO bizarre. And I
find that the work I've done (not a large body at all, I admit) which is
liked by many people has been tonal. (Not that it has bought me dinner,
either - that's what these calluses on my hands are for...)
I don't set out to write atonally or tonally, but I let ideas take form. I
do find it interesting, though, to write very modally, for example, but at
least loosely within sonata-allegro form. Or take the minuet or rondo form
and see what wild things might grow there. Outmoded? Maybe I am an old-style
writer at heart. No apologies if I am.
Noam D. Elkies
>of Noam D. Elkies, as follows:
>>And why do you "consider the classical idiom" [actually many classical
>>idioms -- I too conflated them in my post] to be "outdated"? As far
>>as I'm concerned, if there's a composer still using an idiom to write
>>music of worth and vitality then the idiom is _ipso facto_ current,
>>for compositional as well as listening and performing purposes.
>Because the chances that anyone will write in a classical style in a way
>that is original, or in a way that outdoes Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven,
>are so slim. [...]
Fortunately Mozart and Beethoven did not share this defeatist attitude!
Nor, for that matter, did Schubert with his 5th Symphony, which could
well pass for Mozart's 42nd.
Beethoven even went so far as to re-compose the same Mozart quartet twice!
Examples continue well into the 20th century.
> You can write neo-Classical music, adding a twist or a
>perosnal angle on the classical style, and sound original - although
>even that's been done now.
Which doesn't mean it can't be done again, and better.
>You can't write I-IV-V music, with Alberti bass and exclusively
>functional harmony and all the rest of it and still be original.
That's a red herring -- you won't find many (any?) Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven
scores that use only I-IV-V and Alberti bass. Besides, as I noted in the
parent thread, Chopin once decided to write I-V music over a constant
bass pattern, and Schubert wrote I-I-I-I-... music over a drone bass,
and those *were* original.
But don't make too much of a fetish of originality; way too much talnet
has been wasted this century in the quest for writing Something That
Has Never Been Done Before. 150 years later, is Schubert's 5th any
worse of a piece for having been written 20 years after Mozart's death?
Do we need the birth certificate of a composition to judge its musical worth?
>Even Mozart didn't really develop a new idiom, but he was so damn good
>at it that he got away with it - and of course it was still the done
>thing and he was original. These days, when it is not the done thing
That's a circular argument; once enough people do it, then it *is* the
done thing.
>and most of the good ideas have already been taken, you'd have to be
>absolutely exceptional to be successful as a classical writer;
Was it ever not thus?
In fact, we have some significant advantages over (for instance) Mozart:
we hear a much wider variety of music, including all of Mozart's own --
imagine what Mozart would have written had he been exposed to his own
late symphonies and concerti as a teenager! We also have a much wider
theoretical base; Mozart never studied Schenker. We also have potentially
more time -- we can take much more than two weeks to write a symphony.
All this means that a composer whose gifts do not match Mozart's,
but is willing to stand on that giant's shoulders, could nevertheless
produce music of comparable quality; and that (heresy alert) a composer
close enough to Mozart's stature could produce *better* music in much
the same idiom.
But none of this wonderful music will come into existence if we discard
Mozart et al. as so many out-of-date milk cartons to pursue the will-o-the-wisp
of novelty and originality for their own sake.
>History never repeats itself.
History is for historians to figure out after the fact; we write for
musicians, not historians. Write the best music you can, in whatever
idiom you feel most drawn to and fluent in, leaving it to the historians
to try to sort out how your music fits in whatever generation you've
found yourself in.
--Noam D. Elkies (remove I-IV-V from e-address to reply)
Larisa Migachyov
:
:Because the chances that anyone will write in a classical style in a way
:that is original, or in a way that outdoes Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven,
:perosnal angle on the classical style, and sound original - although
:bass and exclusively functional harmony and all the rest of it and still
:be original.
"The" classical style? I think there is still a lot to be done with tonal
music - not necessarily sounding like bad imitations of Mozart, but
nevertheless tonal. Nor do I think that there is just one classical style
- there are many, and some that are still unexplored. The jazz idiom is
just one new twist on "tonal" music - many others doubtless exist.
Dana
If you enjoy baiting so much, why don't you take up fishing?...
Dana
------
Albert Silverman <slv...@netcom.com> wrote in article <slvrmnF3...@netcom.com>...
Samuel Vriezen
>In article <gR0lGIAj...@lansdown.demon.co.uk>,
>Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>But this is all concerned with what people are listening to and playing
>>If you're talking about that, then I wouldn't suggest for a minute that
>>pre-20th century idioms are outdated. However, the topic of this NG and
>>this thread is composition, and for compositional purposes
>
>For your belated information, one "compositional purpose" is the
>_learning of music which predates the so-called "modern" period_. I
>haven't the slightest idea why you think that this objective is NOT a
>"compositional purpose."
I never composed music in order to learn Bach. If I want to learn
about Bach, I would analyse Bach, or do counterpoint excercise, which
is aking to composing, but not the same thing, for me.
Samuel
Dana
Agreed, it is current to the extent that it is being used by folks here and now. But I simply cannot conceive of common-practice theory and practice as being "contemporary" in the sense that, say, some of Bartok's music was for its time.
As a matter of fact, even Sibelius became aware that after his 3rd symphony, he came to believe that his musical style did not sound "modern" enough. Hence, his 4th symphony.
But, for what reasons he did not continue in this vein.
Dana
--------
Noam D. Elkies <elk...@mapierreth.harvard.edu> wrote in article <746uq0$5v5$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
> In article <gR0lGIAj...@lansdown.demon.co.uk>,
> Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >[I wrote, in reply to:]
> >>>As far as the more classical side goes - although I suspect from what
> >>>you say about writing songs you are less likely to be on this side - I
> >>>can't really advise because my own classical style is quite contemporary
> >>>and I don't see any point, except for the purposes of learning classical
> >>>theory, of writing in an outdated idiom.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >>Outdated? Don't believe it; yet another case of an exaggerated
> >>death rumor. Consider: [...]
>
> >>My conclusion is that, in a very real sense, common-practice
> >>tonality has at least as strong a claim to being a *contemporary*
> >>classical idiom as any created in our waning 20th century.
>
> >But this is all concerned with what people are listening to and playing.
> >If you're talking about that, then I wouldn't suggest for a minute that
> >pre-20th century idioms are outdated. However, the topic of this NG and
> >this thread is composition, and for compositional purposes I do consider
> >the classical idiom to be outdated - except, as I said in the original
> >post, for the purposes of learning about theory.
>
> And why do you "consider the classical idiom" [actually many classical
> idioms -- I too conflated them in my post] to be "outdated"? As far
> as I'm concerned, if there's a composer still using an idiom to write
> music of worth and vitality then the idiom is _ipso facto_ current,
> for compositional as well as listening and performing purposes.
>
Dana
Neal <nea...@javanetspam.com> wrote in article <749osl$fce$1...@as4100c.javanet.com>...
>
> Samuel Hogarth wrote in message ...
> >At 21:11:28 on Thu, 3 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
> >of Noam D. Elkies, as follows:
> >>And why do you "consider the classical idiom"...to be "outdated"?
> >
> >Because the chances that anyone will write in a classical style in a way
> >that is original, or in a way that outdoes Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven,
> >are so slim. You can write neo-Classical music, adding a twist or a
> >perosnal angle on the classical style, and sound original - although
> >even that's been done now. You can't write I-IV-V music, with Alberti
> >bass and exclusively functional harmony and all the rest of it and still
> >be original.
>
> Now explain why originality is important. I am dead serious. Short of
> plaigarism, wouldn't it make sense to write in the older and beloved styles?
Sure, if those styles appeal to you.
> Think: which musics are most often requested by audiences? They generally
> like the tonal stuff.
Yes, but most composers, I suspect, do not write music to order -- unless, of course, they are filling a commission that requires them to write something to specification.
> If a composer is truly talented, they can make
> tonality work.
I do not think it is a matter of making tonality work. If the music uses common-practice theory it will inevitably sound a certain way. Schumman sounds just as Romantic as Franck or Tchaikovsky.
When I listen to tonal music written by others, more often than not, I will say something like: "Oh, that sounds like Scriabin." or "I can hear snippets of Brahms." Does this mean that I do not like such music? No, not at all. It can be quite pleasant to hear.
(By the way, I am interesting in hearing (MIDI or otherwise) tonal music that you have written where you "make tonality work." Do you have a website I could visit?)
>It is my dangerous opinion that a composer who must write
> atonally because they fear they can't be original in tonal context is
> probably not very original to start.
Perhaps. But again, tradition tonal music still sounds a certain way -- Be it Baroque, Classical, early or Late Romantic. Though I could be wrong, I think music written today that has been influenced by those divisions will sound pretty much like them.
As an aside, I remember reading an interview with Aaron Copland and Leonard Bernstein. Bernstein had written something and then played it for Copland. Copland's responsed (not in a mean way) by saying the piece sounded like "warmed-over Scriabin." Does this mean that Bernstein wasn't original? Well, I really can't say.
>I am NOT knocking atonal music or
> modern sounds. I am not saying we should not try new things and experiment.
> But I am indeed saying that if you want to earn a living as a composer you
> would serve yourself well by, as some might refer to it, "selling out".
Actually, I would recommend going into economics or business, where I am sure one can earn much more money. But, if "selling out" gives a person the financial means to eventually sell back in, I don't think that would be a bad thing.
Who I dislike is the person who has "sold out" their entire career and then tries to gain "respectabilty" by writing a "serious" piece. I just don't see the point.
> I've
> written things no one would pay me for because they are SO bizarre. And I
> find that the work I've done (not a large body at all, I admit) which is
> liked by many people has been tonal.
Oh, course. Peole love the familiar or at least the seemingly familiar.
Dana
Larisa Migachyov
:
:But don't make too much of a fetish of originality; way too much talnet
:has been wasted this century in the quest for writing Something That
:Has Never Been Done Before. 150 years later, is Schubert's 5th any
:worse of a piece for having been written 20 years after Mozart's death?
:Do we need the birth certificate of a composition to judge its musical worth?
Thank you so much for saying this! I am sick and tired of people saying
that being "original" (whatever that means) is somehow better than working
in a tonal style. Perhaps, I should have been born in the early 19th
century; that's where my musical style belongs to a large degree.
However, to change that style to warmed-over Webern would be to be untrue
to myself and to the music I hear in my head. Besides, I fail to see why
warmed-over Webern is so much better than warmed-over Schubert. :)
The fact is that all composers imitate, at least in the beginning of their
compositional careers. Beethoven imitated Mozart; Mozart imitated Haydn;
etc. Even the completely aleatoric composers are imitating somebody -
namely, the other aleatoric composers. :) It is a necessary step to
developing one's own style. And I fail to see why being primarily
influenced by, say, Chopin is so much less worthy of respect than being
primarily influenced by Arvo Part.
This age is unique in musical history in that all past styles are
immediately available to us at the push of a button; either musical scores
or actual performances are easy to get and to hear. So, can't one pick
and choose from this wealth of musical information? Why must I, in
selecting a compositional style to follow, be restricted to a very small
sub-group of the available music, especially if it is one I do not like or
understand all that much?
Dana
Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote in article <749u5c$huv$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
> Samuel Hogarth wrote:
> :
> :Because the chances that anyone will write in a classical style in a way
> :that is original, or in a way that outdoes Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven,
> :are so slim. You can write neo-Classical music, adding a twist or a
> :perosnal angle on the classical style, and sound original - although
> :even that's been done now. You can't write I-IV-V music, with Alberti
> :bass and exclusively functional harmony and all the rest of it and still
> :be original.
> :
> "The" classical style? I think there is still a lot to be done with tonal
> music - not necessarily sounding like bad imitations of Mozart,
If you are referring to music of the historical Classical period, sure, there where stylistic differences; for example, Austrian versus French or Northen European versus Spanish. But, it still all sounds it belongs in the Classical period, as opposed to the Late Romantic period.
> but
> nevertheless tonal. Nor do I think that there is just one classical style
> - there are many, and some that are still unexplored.
Perhaps, but I have not yet discovered (through recordings, scores, etc.) any of this new "tonal" classical style.
> The jazz idiom is
> just one new twist on "tonal" music - many others doubtless exist.
But it is still "tonal" music. In my view, if a piece has a "tonal center" (in the traditional sense), then it is tonal music -- even if there are subsequent modulations. Nielsen explored "progressive" tonality (beginning a piece in one key, but ending it in another) in his pieces, but none the less, the music is still tonal.
Oh, and by the way, I enjoy both "tonal" and "non-tonal" music. :)
Dana
<cdja...@fuse.net>
Dana
Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote in article <74a5hv$k8a$2...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
> Noam D. Elkies wrote:
> :
> :But don't make too much of a fetish of originality; way too much talnet
> :has been wasted this century in the quest for writing Something That
> :Has Never Been Done Before. 150 years later, is Schubert's 5th any
> :worse of a piece for having been written 20 years after Mozart's death?
> :Do we need the birth certificate of a composition to judge its musical worth?
>
> Thank you so much for saying this! I am sick and tired of people saying
> that being "original" (whatever that means) is somehow better than working
> in a tonal style. Perhaps, I should have been born in the early 19th
> century; that's where my musical style belongs to a large degree.
> However, to change that style to warmed-over Webern would be to be untrue
> to myself and to the music I hear in my head. Besides, I fail to see why
> warmed-over Webern is so much better than warmed-over Schubert. :)
>
> The fact is that all composers imitate, at least in the beginning of their
> compositional careers. Beethoven imitated Mozart; Mozart imitated Haydn;
> etc. Even the completely aleatoric composers are imitating somebody -
> namely, the other aleatoric composers. :) It is a necessary step to
> developing one's own style. And I fail to see why being primarily
> influenced by, say, Chopin is so much less worthy of respect than being
> primarily influenced by Arvo Part.
For me, it because Part is writing in "our" time. Also, if I wanted to listen tomusic that sounded like Chopin, I would listen to Chopin. ;)
Dana
<cdja...@fuse.net>
>
> This age is unique in musical history in that all past styles are
> immediately available to us at the push of a button; either musical scores
> or actual performances are easy to get and to hear. So, can't one pick
> and choose from this wealth of musical information? Why must I, in
> selecting a compositional style to follow, be restricted to a very small
> sub-group of the available music, especially if it is one I do not like or
> understand all that much?
>
Larisa Migachyov
Distribution:
Dana wrote:
:> The fact is that all composers imitate, at least in the beginning of
:their
:> compositional careers. Beethoven imitated Mozart; Mozart imitated Haydn;
:
:> etc. Even the completely aleatoric composers are imitating somebody -
:> namely, the other aleatoric composers. :) It is a necessary step to
:> developing one's own style. And I fail to see why being primarily
:> influenced by, say, Chopin is so much less worthy of respect than being
:> primarily influenced by Arvo Part.
:
:For me, it because Part is writing in "our" time. Also, if I wanted to
:listen tomusic that sounded like Chopin, I would listen to Chopin. ;)
And if I wanted to listen to music that sounded like Part, shouldn't I
listen to Part?
LM
Alain Naigeon
> I never composed music in order to learn Bach. If I want to learn
> about Bach, I would analyse Bach, or do counterpoint excercise, which
> is aking to composing, but not the same thing, for me.
Do you mean that, while writing exercises, you're always thinking
that you must not like them, and you manage to never put anything
of yourself in them ?
--
Alain NAIGEON - Strasbourg, France - anai...@club-internet.fr
Visitez le site musical http://www.club-internet.fr/perso/anaigeon
(Barbireau, Brumel, Josquin, LaRue, Monteverdi, Sermisy, etc...)
Samuel Vriezen
>Samuel Vriezen a écrit:
>> I never composed music in order to learn Bach. If I want to learn
>> about Bach, I would analyse Bach, or do counterpoint excercise, which
>> is aking to composing, but not the same thing, for me.
>
>Do you mean that, while writing exercises, you're always thinking
>that you must not like them, and you manage to never put anything
>of yourself in them ?
No, I like doing exercises sometimes, but 'putting yourself in them'
is really quite a heavy metaphor for the sympathy that I have for
these scribbles.
Samuel
Ken Moore
<cdja...@fuse.net> writes
>For me, it because Part is writing in "our" time. Also, if I wanted to
>listen tomusic that sounded like Chopin, I would listen to Chopin. ;)
Part may be writing in our time, but he is not writing for me.
Moreover, sounding even half like Chopin would be a much greater
achievement than sounding totally like Part. I suppose you might want
to do the latter for the money, but Andrew Lloyd Webber sells even
better.
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
Samuel Hogarth
of Noam D. Elkies, as follows:
>>that is original, or in a way that outdoes Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven,
>
>Fortunately Mozart and Beethoven did not share this defeatist attitude!
>
>Nor, for that matter, did Schubert with his 5th Symphony, which could
>well pass for Mozart's 42nd.
>
>Beethoven even went so far as to re-compose the same Mozart quartet twice!
>
>Examples continue well into the 20th century.
Call it defeatist if you like. Beethoven certainly had some appreciation
for it, because he took music into the Romantic period. Things change
because they go out of date. When Mozart was writing, and at the
beginning of Beethoven's career, classical music was being written.
Thanks as much as anyone to Beethoven, by the time he died it was
becoming obsolete.
Samuel Hogarth
of Larisa Migachyov, as follows:
>Noam D. Elkies wrote:
>:
>:But don't make too much of a fetish of originality; way too much talnet
>:has been wasted this century in the quest for writing Something That
>:Has Never Been Done Before. 150 years later, is Schubert's 5th any
>:worse of a piece for having been written 20 years after Mozart's death?
>:Do we need the birth certificate of a composition to judge its musical worth?
>
>Thank you so much for saying this! I am sick and tired of people saying
>that being "original" (whatever that means) is somehow better than working
>in a tonal style. Perhaps, I should have been born in the early 19th
>century; that's where my musical style belongs to a large degree.
>However, to change that style to warmed-over Webern would be to be untrue
>to myself and to the music I hear in my head. Besides, I fail to see why
>warmed-over Webern is so much better than warmed-over Schubert. :)
There is a difference between writing music that is current and
relevant, like one aleatoric composer 'copying' another; to revive a
style, without attempting to modernise or change it, when it is two
hundred years since anyone got famous doing it, is not - IMHO - very
worthwhile.
Composing is a personal thing, and at the end of the day all this
conversation leads to is that you should compose what you feel you want
to say through your music. However, it is my personal belief that you
can't express yourself - or that I can't express myself - in anyone
else's style.
Samuel Hogarth
of Neal, as follows:
>
>Samuel Hogarth wrote in message ...
>>of Noam D. Elkies, as follows:
>>
>>that is original, or in a way that outdoes Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven,
>>perosnal angle on the classical style, and sound original - although
>>even that's been done now. You can't write I-IV-V music, with Alberti
>>bass and exclusively functional harmony and all the rest of it and still
>>be original.
>
>plaigarism, wouldn't it make sense to write in the older and beloved styles?
>tonality work. It is my dangerous opinion that a composer who must write
>atonally because they fear they can't be original in tonal context is
>modern sounds. I am not saying we should not try new things and experiment.
>But I am indeed saying that if you want to earn a living as a composer you
>written things no one would pay me for because they are SO bizarre. And I
>find that the work I've done (not a large body at all, I admit) which is
>either - that's what these calluses on my hands are for...)
>
>I don't set out to write atonally or tonally, but I let ideas take form. I
>do find it interesting, though, to write very modally, for example, but at
>least loosely within sonata-allegro form. Or take the minuet or rondo form
>and see what wild things might grow there. Outmoded? Maybe I am an old-style
>writer at heart. No apologies if I am.
I don't think it's fair to brand anyone who fears accidental plaigarism
or failure to achieve originality when they write in a classical idiom
as unoriginal. It just quite simply isn't possible to be original and
write Mozart.
As for the importance of originality, your main justification that it is
unimportant appears to be that it you should write what audiences want
to hear. This is of course a long-standing dispute; however, I err on
the anti-populist (for want of a better word) side. I don't think it is
much of an artistic achievement to do something less well than somebody
else who perfected it two hundred-odd years ago.
Samuel Hogarth
of Dana, as follows:
>For me, it because Part is writing in "our" time. Also, if I wanted to
>listen tomusic that sounded like Chopin, I would listen to Chopin. ;)
Exactly my point.
Samuel Hogarth
of Larisa Migachyov, as follows:
>:For me, it because Part is writing in "our" time. Also, if I wanted to
>:listen tomusic that sounded like Chopin, I would listen to Chopin. ;)
>
>listen to Part?
Yes, that doesn't contradict Carl's post. He made two points: firstly,
that being influenced by somebody current may lead to something original
and relevant but being influenced to a large degree by, for instance,
Chopin is much less likely to. Secondly, that it is pointless to try and
emulate masters of composition because you can't outdo them.
Samuel Hogarth
of Albert Silverman, as follows:
>In article <gR0lGIAj...@lansdown.demon.co.uk>,
>Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>But this is all concerned with what people are listening to and playing
>>pre-20th century idioms are outdated. However, the topic of this NG and
>>this thread is composition, and for compositional purposes
>
>_learning of music which predates the so-called "modern" period_. I
>haven't the slightest idea why you think that this objective is NOT a
>"compositional purpose."
>
That's right, Albert, resort to pointless and unprovoked insult when
unable to make a valid point or back it up with a relevant quote.
>
>>I do consider
>>the classical idiom to be outdated - except, as I said in the original
>>post, for the purposes of learning about theory.
>
>You have a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease!
I said 'except.' Saying 'this is true, except in this case' does not
mean you are contradicting yourself. It means you are qualifying one
point by explaining when it does not apply.
You who so faithfully preserve the correctness of the English language
should know that.
Larisa Migachyov
:
:I don't think it's fair to brand anyone who fears accidental plaigarism
:or failure to achieve originality when they write in a classical idiom
:as unoriginal. It just quite simply isn't possible to be original and
:write Mozart.
Yes, but what if your natural affinity is for a Classical style? It won't
be Mozart - it'll be you.
:As for the importance of originality, your main justification that it is
:unimportant appears to be that it you should write what audiences want
:to hear. This is of course a long-standing dispute; however, I err on
:the anti-populist (for want of a better word) side. I don't think it is
:much of an artistic achievement to do something less well than somebody
:else who perfected it two hundred-odd years ago.
Actually, I have a different justification - to write what *you* hear in
your head. Sometimes what I write sounds very much like Schubert - but it
is what I hear, and it is mine. I don't care about populism or
anti-populism - nobody hears my music anyway. However, I do care about
being true to myself. Originality is important - but originality merely
for the sake of originality is silly. Yes, I can write a concerto for
dot-matrix printer and orchestra (said orchestra consisting entirely of
balalaikas, bagpipes, and bassoons) - I'm sure that has Never Been Done
Before (and now that i think about it, it does sound like a rather
interesting idea <grin> ). However, if I want to write real music -
express the deeper areas of my soul and communicate my essence to an
audience - I will not think about originality, but rather about truth.
Hmm. All that said - anyone got a dot matrix printer I could borrow? :)
Larisa Migachyov
:At 02:25:03 on Sat, 5 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
:of Larisa Migachyov, as follows:
:>Thank you so much for saying this! I am sick and tired of people saying
:>that being "original" (whatever that means) is somehow better than working
:>in a tonal style. Perhaps, I should have been born in the early 19th
:>century; that's where my musical style belongs to a large degree.
:>However, to change that style to warmed-over Webern would be to be untrue
:>to myself and to the music I hear in my head. Besides, I fail to see why
:>warmed-over Webern is so much better than warmed-over Schubert. :)
:<snip>
:
:Composing is a personal thing, and at the end of the day all this
:conversation leads to is that you should compose what you feel you want
:to say through your music. However, it is my personal belief that you
:can't express yourself - or that I can't express myself - in anyone
:else's style.
But it's my style. It might resemble Chopin in some ways, but it is mine
- quite identifiably so. People who have heard my music have no trouble
identifying my style - it has many elements that are uniquely mine. Or
are you saying that all Romantic composers sound the same? And I'm
expressing myself just fine with the musical language I have, thank you
very much.
If I were to try writing atonal music, OTOH, I'd definitely be incapable
of turning out anything other than warmed-over Webern; but my tonal style
is mine and mine alone, just like Chopin's style or Schubert's style or
Weber's style is unique.
If I were born in the 19th century, would you be saying the same things?
Probably not, right? Well, consider me that rarity - a living early 19th
century composer. :) I fail to see why my music is any less worthy of
consideration than the music of any other 19th century composer. :)
Ted Peterson
Carl's post. He made two points: firstly,
that being influenced by somebody current may lead to something original
and relevant but being influenced to a large degree by, for instance,
Chopin is much less likely to. Secondly, that it is pointless to try and
emulate masters of composition because you can't outdo them.
I don't know about emulating masters because I think every composer has been influenced by one of the "masters" to the point that at some time, a knowledgable observer could identify the composer and, possibly, work that was the inspiriation for the piece. Steve Reich said it was Perotin. Stravinski/Debussy, Schoenberg/Wagner, Wagner/Meyerbeer, Beethoven/Haydn, Mozart/Bach. (For the Requiem). I felt -- and still do -- that a lot of new music I heard sounded like Varese and he certainly predated anyone writing now. It seems to me that, historically, composers who don't challenge their time by developing something unique in their own music -- their own voice -- have ended up on the trash heap of history.
There is probably more music composed now that ever before. (and I'm not fooled by the greater population problem.) It has always seemed that the pursuit of art has been the dominion of the upper (financial) classes because they had the time to focus on something other than grinding out a living. Today, more people have more leisure and better education. Now, if historically the people with the money supported the artistic direction, the same thing is happening now. I don't know if popular music will replace or be the extension of what we have come to call "Classical" music. Paul Henry Lang suggested that musical change took place primarily because of the adoption of popular elements into an accepted practice. This would seem to mean that composers are emulating something. But many of the "rules" that goverened music production in the 19th and early 20th centuries don't seem to have as mush sway now. Nicolas Slonimski once remarked that today, "Anything goes. However, a new composer writing like or emulating the style of Stravinski is probably only writing bad Stravinski."
I have always thought it was a personal voice/style thing. When I was in University, I had a theory professor give as an assignement the working out of a Bach Fugue given the first few measures then the harmonies. We weren't supposed to look at the fugue. (Of the 12 people in the class, no one had played or was working on the fugue.) Everyone came up with a different solution. He liked mine because I broke the 4 fugal lines into voices with the text: "It's a waste of time to recreate Bach's mind." My fugue wasn't any better or worse than anyone elses by the way.
Ted Peterson, eXindigo!
BTW a must see Documentary/Film called: Theremin. It is terrific.
Noam D. Elkies
Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>At 23:28:25 on Fri, 4 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
>of Noam D. Elkies, as follows:
>>>that is original, or in a way that outdoes Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven,
>>Fortunately Mozart and Beethoven did not share this defeatist attitude!
>>Nor, for that matter, did Schubert with his 5th Symphony, which could
>>well pass for Mozart's 42nd.
>>Beethoven even went so far as to re-compose the same Mozart quartet twice!
>>Examples continue well into the 20th century.
>Call it defeatist if you like. Beethoven certainly had some appreciation
>for it, because he took music into the Romantic period. Things change
>because they go out of date. When Mozart was writing, and at the
>beginning of Beethoven's career, classical music was being written.
>Thanks as much as anyone to Beethoven, by the time he died it was
>becoming obsolete.
High Baroque music was becoming obsolete long before say 1730,
and Bach knew it. It's a good thing he didn't share your attitude.
Nor did Brahms, most of whose best and most characteristic work
was written years or after decades *after* Tristan and Isolde.
Yes, Beethoven ushered in a revolution. But he never said
"I am adopting this new way of composing to revolutionize music".
(Well, I'm practically sure he didn't say or write exactly that,
and I'd be very surprised if he's on record as saying or writing
something equivalent.) He worked in the language of his day --
and yes, of earlier years -- and was gradually and naturally led to
a vision that transformed this language. It is usually the composers
whose goal is not to write the best music they can but to wilfully
forge the Music of the Future whose output soon becomes the music
of the past -- or, to use your word, outdated.
NDE (remove author of Tristan to reply)
Noam D. Elkies
Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>At 02:25:03 on Sat, 5 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
>of Larisa Migachyov, as follows:
>>Noam D. Elkies wrote:
>>:
>>:But don't make too much of a fetish of originality; way too much talnet
>>:has been wasted this century in the quest for writing Something That
>>:Has Never Been Done Before. 150 years later, is Schubert's 5th any
>>:worse of a piece for having been written 20 years after Mozart's death?
>>:Do we need the birth certificate of a composition to judge its musical worth?
>>
>>that being "original" (whatever that means) is somehow better than working
>>in a tonal style. Perhaps, I should have been born in the early 19th
>>century; that's where my musical style belongs to a large degree.
>>However, to change that style to warmed-over Webern would be to be untrue
>>to myself and to the music I hear in my head. Besides, I fail to see why
>>warmed-over Webern is so much better than warmed-over Schubert. :)
><snip>
>
>relevant, like one aleatoric composer 'copying' another;
"relevant" to whom? The point of my original message to this thread
is that in an important sense the music of the common practice is
much *more* relevant *today* than for instance aleatoric music.
You'll say "but that's to performers, not composers"; well, most
of us have been playing a musical instrument, and thus learning
the music of Bach et al., long before we decided to try our own
hand at composing.
>to revive a style, without attempting to modernise or change it,
>when it is two hundred years since anyone got famous doing it,
>is not - IMHO - very worthwhile.
Oh, the heck with "modernize" (in whatever spelling). As to "change",
if a composer has something worthwhile to say musically, they'll
soon adapt whatever style they are working in to their own needs
and make it their own; and that this process is not helped -- indeed
is likely hindered -- by concentrating on "attempting to modernise
or change" that style.
NDE (remove perpetrator of aleatoric music from e-address to reply)
Noam D. Elkies
Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>At 06:27:01 on Sat, 5 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
>of Dana, as follows:
>>For me, it because Part is writing in "our" time. Also, if I wanted to
>>listen to music that sounded like Chopin, I would listen to Chopin. ;)
>Exactly my point.
...and if you wanted to listen to a Mozart cello concerto, or a
Brahms opera, or...?
NDE (remove Paert from e-address to reply)
Noam D. Elkies
Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[...]
>I don't think it's fair to brand anyone who fears accidental plaigarism
>or failure to achieve originality when they write in a classical idiom
>as unoriginal. It just quite simply isn't possible to be original and
>write Mozart.
Again I counsel you not to make so much of "achieving originality" --
originality by itself is not much of an achievement anyway -- and
to refer again to the (counter)example of Schubert's Fifth Symphony.
>I don't think it is much of an artistic achievement to do something
>less well than somebody else who perfected it two hundred-odd years ago.
I'm not suggesting that one should strive to write music that's half
as good as Chopin (though that's certainly a good first step). I'm
saying, try to do as well, or better! I explained already why I believe
that the tools exist nowadays even for a composer no better than Chopin
to achieve this.
"Perfected"? You mean Mozart died at 36 because there was no more good
Mozart music to write? Had he lived even to Beethoven's not-so-old
age of 57 he would surely have written lots more wonderful music, some
of which would be even better than his 40th Symphony or Don Giovanni.
So the music Mozart did live long enough to write, great as it is,
cannot be considered "perfect" because better music would exist
but for a tragic accident of history. And if we can conceive of
such better music, we can also conceive of creating it.
NDE (remove Mozart's Requiem from e-address to reply)
Ken Moore
<elk...@matrichardh.harvard.edu> writes
>In article <8Opg0KAy...@lansdown.demon.co.uk>,
>Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Call it defeatist if you like. Beethoven certainly had some appreciation
>>for it, because he took music into the Romantic period. Things change
>>because they go out of date. When Mozart was writing, and at the
>>beginning of Beethoven's career, classical music was being written.
>>Thanks as much as anyone to Beethoven, by the time he died it was
>>becoming obsolete.
>Yes, Beethoven ushered in a revolution. But he never said
>"I am adopting this new way of composing to revolutionize music".
>(Well, I'm practically sure he didn't say or write exactly that,
>and I'd be very surprised if he's on record as saying or writing
>something equivalent.)
I agree that Beethoven changed the compositional aims of his early 19th
C successors, but not always by being an example to imitate, more by
being too tough a competitor to challenge. The harmonic styles of
Schumann and Mendelssohn seem to me to be more related to Spohr's than
to Beethoven's, while Chopin (the most harmonically innovative) seems to
me more similar (though not very) to Mozart than to Beethoven (lots of
intermediaries, notably Field, at a time of many popular pianist-
composers). As for genres: one of the interesting lectures from my
degree studies was by Professor Dunsby on Schumann writing songs and
Mendelssohn Songs without Words in order to avoid competition with
Beethoven (though An die ferne Geliebte seems pretty tough competition
to me). Wagner got many ideas from Weber (and a previous post reminded
us that he also got them from Meyerbeer). The two who did eventually
accept the challenge of Beethoven were Mendelssohn (Hymn of Praise
inspired by B 9 and some string quartets in Beethovenian forms) and
Brahms (but Beethoven only one of several earlier composers who
influenced Brahms more than his contemporaries did).
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
Samuel Hogarth
of Noam D. Elkies, as follows:
>Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>[...]
>>I don't think it's fair to brand anyone who fears accidental plaigarism
>>or failure to achieve originality when they write in a classical idiom
>>as unoriginal. It just quite simply isn't possible to be original and
>>write Mozart.
>
>Again I counsel you not to make so much of "achieving originality" --
>originality by itself is not much of an achievement anyway -- and
>to refer again to the (counter)example of Schubert's Fifth Symphony.
This paragraph was in response to your own assertion that anyone who
says that you can't write original music in a classical idiom is just
not very original.
What idiom do you yourself write in? I used to share the POV that you,
Larisa and others take until I gained the ability to appreciate and
write modern music. Until then I used the same justifications for
writing music that sounded like something out of the 18th century.
>
>>I don't think it is much of an artistic achievement to do something
>>less well than somebody else who perfected it two hundred-odd years ago.
>
>I'm not suggesting that one should strive to write music that's half
>as good as Chopin (though that's certainly a good first step). I'm
>saying, try to do as well, or better! I explained already why I believe
>that the tools exist nowadays even for a composer no better than Chopin
>to achieve this.
>
>"Perfected"? You mean Mozart died at 36 because there was no more good
>Mozart music to write? Had he lived even to Beethoven's not-so-old
>age of 57 he would surely have written lots more wonderful music, some
>of which would be even better than his 40th Symphony or Don Giovanni.
>So the music Mozart did live long enough to write, great as it is,
>cannot be considered "perfect" because better music would exist
>but for a tragic accident of history. And if we can conceive of
>such better music, we can also conceive of creating it.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Samuel Hogarth
of Ken Moore, as follows:
>>listen tomusic that sounded like Chopin, I would listen to Chopin. ;)
>
>Moreover, sounding even half like Chopin would be a much greater
>achievement than sounding totally like Part. I suppose you might want
>to do the latter for the money, but Andrew Lloyd Webber sells even
>better.
Andrew Lloyd Webber writes music completely devoid of artistic value.
Samuel Hogarth
of Noam D. Elkies, as follows:
>Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>At 06:27:01 on Sat, 5 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
>>of Dana, as follows:
>
>>>For me, it because Part is writing in "our" time. Also, if I wanted to
>
>>Exactly my point.
>
>...and if you wanted to listen to a Mozart cello concerto, or a
>Brahms opera, or...?
What point are you making here? You seem to be supporting my argument.
Samuel Hogarth
of Noam D. Elkies, as follows:
>Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>At 23:28:25 on Fri, 4 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
>>of Noam D. Elkies, as follows:
>>>>that is original, or in a way that outdoes Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven,
>>>>are so slim. [...]
>
>>>Fortunately Mozart and Beethoven did not share this defeatist attitude!
>
>>>Nor, for that matter, did Schubert with his 5th Symphony, which could
>>>well pass for Mozart's 42nd.
>
>>>Beethoven even went so far as to re-compose the same Mozart quartet twice!
>
>>>Examples continue well into the 20th century.
>
>>for it, because he took music into the Romantic period. Things change
>>because they go out of date. When Mozart was writing, and at the
>>beginning of Beethoven's career, classical music was being written.
>>Thanks as much as anyone to Beethoven, by the time he died it was
>>becoming obsolete.
>
>and Bach knew it. It's a good thing he didn't share your attitude.
>
>Nor did Brahms, most of whose best and most characteristic work
>was written years or after decades *after* Tristan and Isolde.
>
>"I am adopting this new way of composing to revolutionize music".
>(Well, I'm practically sure he didn't say or write exactly that,
>and I'd be very surprised if he's on record as saying or writing
>and yes, of earlier years -- and was gradually and naturally led to
>a vision that transformed this language. It is usually the composers
>whose goal is not to write the best music they can but to wilfully
>forge the Music of the Future whose output soon becomes the music
>of the past -- or, to use your word, outdated.
The composers 'whose output soon becomes the music of the past' are
those who never found a personal voice and so had nothing new to add to
art or music. And I don't think that this contradicts writing the best
music you can.
Samuel Hogarth
of Albert Silverman, as follows:
>Noam D. Elkies <elk...@marowth.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>In article <Nrz8dQAU...@lansdown.demon.co.uk>,
>>Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>As far as the more classical side goes - although I suspect from what
>>>you say about writing songs you are less likely to be on this side - I
>>>can't really advise because my own classical style is quite contemporary
>>>and I don't see any point, except for the purposes of learning classical
>>>theory, of writing in an outdated idiom.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Outdated? Don't believe it; yet another case of an exaggerated
>>death rumor.
>
>To a 14-year-old child, this music is "old-fogey" stuff. Translation:
>"outdated". What should you expect?
You are pathetic. Really pathetic.
>Albert Silverman
>(Al is in Wonderland!)
>where 14-year-old children know EVERYTHING
Oh, you're too kind. No, really.
Samuel Hogarth
of Ken Moore, as follows:
><elk...@matrichardh.harvard.edu> writes
>>Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Call it defeatist if you like. Beethoven certainly had some appreciation
>>>for it, because he took music into the Romantic period. Things change
>>>because they go out of date. When Mozart was writing, and at the
>>>beginning of Beethoven's career, classical music was being written.
>>>Thanks as much as anyone to Beethoven, by the time he died it was
>>>becoming obsolete.
>>Yes, Beethoven ushered in a revolution. But he never said
>>"I am adopting this new way of composing to revolutionize music".
>>(Well, I'm practically sure he didn't say or write exactly that,
>>and I'd be very surprised if he's on record as saying or writing
>>something equivalent.)
>
>C successors, but not always by being an example to imitate, more by
>being too tough a competitor to challenge.
It's a mixture. Certainly what you say is to a degree true, and is part
of the reason I don't think we should try and write in an outdated
idiom. OTOH, Beethoven was the first composer to write music that we
would today call 'Romantic,' so it is obviously not entirely true to
disregard his positive contributions to the development of music.
Samuel Hogarth
of Larisa Migachyov, as follows:
>Samuel Hogarth wrote:
>:
>:Because the chances that anyone will write in a classical style in a way
>:that is original, or in a way that outdoes Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven,
>:perosnal angle on the classical style, and sound original - although
>:even that's been done now. You can't write I-IV-V music, with Alberti
>:bass and exclusively functional harmony and all the rest of it and still
>:be original.
>"The" classical style? I think there is still a lot to be done with tonal
>music - not necessarily sounding like bad imitations of Mozart, but
>nevertheless tonal. Nor do I think that there is just one classical style
>- there are many, and some that are still unexplored. The jazz idiom is
>just one new twist on "tonal" music - many others doubtless exist.
>
There's certainly truth in that. Still, I would contend a large number
of the modern-day composers writing tonally are bad imitations of Mozart
who are not good enough composers to write in a modern style.
Samuel Hogarth
of Larisa Migachyov, as follows:
>Samuel Hogarth wrote:
>:
>:or failure to achieve originality when they write in a classical idiom
>:as unoriginal. It just quite simply isn't possible to be original and
>:write Mozart.
>
>be Mozart - it'll be you.
I used to think my natural affinity was for a classical style. Then I
forced myself to learn to write modern music, mostly by listening to
that of other people, because I knew that I could never get taken
seriously as a composer if I didn't.
It's a little bit like not wanting to learn to touch-type because while
you're learning you'll have to go slower than how quick you were before
- even though at the end of it your speed will increase by 2 or 3 times.
Maybe it's not for me to say, but I think maybe you would get more out
of your composing if you were writing things that were both personal and
original.
Samuel Hogarth
of Larisa Migachyov, as follows:
>Probably not, right? Well, consider me that rarity - a living early 19th
>century composer. :) I fail to see why my music is any less worthy of
>consideration than the music of any other 19th century composer. :)
>
If you were a 386 computer with 4 meg of RAM in 1960, I'd think you were
an absolutely stunning tribute to the wonders of man and modern
technology.
David Lamb
>Well, consider me that rarity - a living early 19th
>century composer. :) I fail to see why my music is any less worthy of
>consideration than the music of any other 19th century composer. :)
>
Fair enough! Where can we hear some of your music? I would really like to
hear some.
David Lamb in Seattle
<dl...@oz.net>
Noam D. Elkies
Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>At 03:24:24 on Sun, 6 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
>of Noam D. Elkies, as follows:
>>Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>At 06:27:01 on Sat, 5 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
>>>of Dana, as follows:
>>>>For me, it because Part is writing in "our" time. Also, if I wanted to
>>>>listen to music that sounded like Chopin, I would listen to Chopin. ;)
>>>Exactly my point.
>>...and if you wanted to listen to a Mozart cello concerto, or a
>>Brahms opera, or...?
>What point are you making here? You seem to be supporting my argument.
Mozart never wrote a cello concerto, and Brahms never wrote an opera.
So if you want to listen to something that sounds like one, or if you're
a performer and want to perform one, it will have to be written now in
that style.
NDE (remove nonsense from e-address to respond)
Larisa Migachyov
:At 23:10:27 on Sat, 5 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
:of Larisa Migachyov, as follows:
:>Samuel Hogarth wrote:
:>:
:>:I don't think it's fair to brand anyone who fears accidental plaigarism
:>:or failure to achieve originality when they write in a classical idiom
:>:as unoriginal. It just quite simply isn't possible to be original and
:>:write Mozart.
:>
:>Yes, but what if your natural affinity is for a Classical style? It won't
:>be Mozart - it'll be you.
:<snip>
:
:I used to think my natural affinity was for a classical style. Then I
:forced myself to learn to write modern music, mostly by listening to
:that of other people, because I knew that I could never get taken
:seriously as a composer if I didn't.
Ah, I see. Well, this is all well and good for someone who writes music
for others - and all professional composers should definitely follow your
advice. I, for one, have never written music for anyone but myself - and
I am not going to force myself to change my style to suit someone else's
wishes.
:It's a little bit like not wanting to learn to touch-type because while
:you're learning you'll have to go slower than how quick you were before
:- even though at the end of it your speed will increase by 2 or 3 times.
:Maybe it's not for me to say, but I think maybe you would get more out
:of your composing if you were writing things that were both personal and
:original.
Again - why can't one be original in a tonal mode? And why can't one be
unoriginal in an atonal mode? And why must everyone write in the same
style to consider themselves "original"?
Larisa Migachyov
:At 23:18:12 on Sat, 5 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
:of Larisa Migachyov, as follows:
:>Probably not, right? Well, consider me that rarity - a living early 19th
:>century composer. :) I fail to see why my music is any less worthy of
:>consideration than the music of any other 19th century composer. :)
:
:If you were a 386 computer with 4 meg of RAM in 1960, I'd think you were
:an absolutely stunning tribute to the wonders of man and modern
:technology.
Do you really think that 19th century music is as far behind modern music
as a 386 computer is behind modern computers? I understand what you mean
- but I think that it applies more to technology than to artistic
endeavor. A Pentium is better than a 386; it works faster and does more
things. Is John Cage necessarily better than Mozart? The answer to that
is not quite so clear to me. What does John Cage do better than Mozart?
Larisa Migachyov
:Larisa wrote:
:
:>Well, consider me that rarity - a living early 19th
:>century composer. :) I fail to see why my music is any less worthy of
:>consideration than the music of any other 19th century composer. :)
:>
:
:hear some.
Well, at present it is all sitting on my shelf on scribbled pieces of
paper; however, I just might tape a few preludes and other piano things if
you'd like me to and are willing to overlook my horrendous piano playing
(haven't practiced all quarter). :) I've got a bunch of art songs that I
am rather proud of - but you really wouldn't want to hear me sing. :)
Noam D. Elkies
Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>At 03:12:45 on Sun, 6 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
>of Noam D. Elkies, as follows:
>>Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>I don't think it's fair to brand anyone who fears accidental plaigarism
>>>or failure to achieve originality when they write in a classical idiom
>>>as unoriginal. It just quite simply isn't possible to be original and
>>>write Mozart.
>>Again I counsel you not to make so much of "achieving originality" --
>>originality by itself is not much of an achievement anyway -- and
>>to refer again to the (counter)example of Schubert's Fifth Symphony.
>This paragraph was in response to your own assertion that anyone who
>says that you can't write original music in a classical idiom is just
>not very original.
I don't think it was my paragraph that it was in response to, but whatever.
Do you know Schubert's 5th? Do you agree that it is credible as a late
Mozart symphony, in both musical style and in quality? If so, do you
believe it suffers in musical quality compared to Mozart's late symphonies
because it was written after Beethoven had "outdated" Mozart's style?
>What idiom do you yourself write in? I used to share the POV that you,
>Larisa and others take until I gained the ability to appreciate and
>write modern music. Until then I used the same justifications for
>writing music that sounded like something out of the 18th century.
I write music in various idioms, mostly tonal and including but not limited
to common-practice tonality. You can see and hear some samples by visiting
my music web page, http://www.math.harvard.edu/~elkies/music.html .
I used to share your point of view until I saw, on the one hand, that
it was but a prejudice, and one that brought much of our century's
music to a sorry state; and on the other hand, the extent to which
the composers of the past whose music I most admire gained from
the use of styles and models from the "outdated" music of their
ancestors, both immediate and long past.
>>I'm not suggesting that one should strive to write music that's half
>>as good as Chopin (though that's certainly a good first step). I'm
>>saying, try to do as well, or better! I explained already why I believe
>>that the tools exist nowadays even for a composer no better than Chopin
>>to achieve this.
>>"Perfected"? You mean Mozart died at 36 because there was no more good
>>Mozart music to write? Had he lived even to Beethoven's not-so-old
>>age of 57 he would surely have written lots more wonderful music, some
>>of which would be even better than his 40th Symphony or Don Giovanni.
>>So the music Mozart did live long enough to write, great as it is,
>>cannot be considered "perfect" because better music would exist
>>but for a tragic accident of history. And if we can conceive of
>>such better music, we can also conceive of creating it.
>I'll believe it when I see it.
What part of the argument don't you believe? What kind of music do
you think Mozart would have written if he had another, say, ten years
(ignoring the fact that Beethoven was to burst on the scene during
that time and would surely have influenced Mozart)?
NDE (delete garbage from e-address to reply)
Noam D. Elkies
Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>It's a mixture. Certainly what you say is to a degree true, and is part
>of the reason I don't think we should try and write in an outdated
>idiom. OTOH, Beethoven was the first composer to write music that we
>would today call 'Romantic,' so it is obviously not entirely true to
>disregard his positive contributions to the development of music.
FWIW I've heard and seen some snatches of Mozart and even Bach described
as "Romantic". But that's just a label, one which is applied equally
to Tchaikovsky and Liszt and Verdi and Berlioz and (most) Beethoven
and Brahms and... A description as diffuse as "Romantic" is just
inadequate for Beethoven's contribution.
NDE (use a four-letter word for "mathematics" in e-address to reply)
Noam D. Elkies
Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>Do you really think that 19th century music is as far behind modern music
>as a 386 computer is behind modern computers? I understand what you mean
>- but I think that it applies more to technology than to artistic endeavor.
Indeed; a lot of this worshipping of the New arises from an attempt to
treat the art of music composition as if it were science or technology.
>A Pentium is better than a 386; it works faster and does more
>things. Is John Cage necessarily better than Mozart? The answer to that
>is not quite so clear to me. What does John Cage do better than Mozart?
Oh, I think the answer to both questions is quite clear to both of us ;-)
and is rather damning of the pursuit of novelty as an end in itself.
[though some Junk Age aficionados take the answer "nothing" to the latter
question in a Zen sense, in that Cage did Nothing and did it well whereas
Mozart never attempted to do Nothing :-) I rather prefer my mother's
admonition: if you have Nothing to say then Shut Up. Having nothing more
to say here, I take her advice now.]
NDE (remove nothing from e-address to reply)
Larisa Migachyov
:
:I used to think my natural affinity was for a classical style. Then I
:forced myself to learn to write modern music, mostly by listening to
:that of other people, because I knew that I could never get taken
:seriously as a composer if I didn't.
:It's a little bit like not wanting to learn to touch-type because while
:you're learning you'll have to go slower than how quick you were before
:- even though at the end of it your speed will increase by 2 or 3 times.
:Maybe it's not for me to say, but I think maybe you would get more out
:of your composing if you were writing things that were both personal and
:original.
So you think I should give up my "unoriginal" style that has taken me 17
years to develop, that is highly individualized and attuned to my every
mood and uniquely my own, and start copying atonal composers so that I
will sound "original"? "Original" by whose definition? Am I supposed to
follow the great herd of the "originals" to be a composer?
No thank you. I'm not a professional; I don't have to be taken seriously
by anyone but myself; and I will never be able to look myself in the eye
if I change the way I write music merely for the reason that someone might
not approve.
Actually, I've been noticing that I'm much more willing to play with weird
harmonic variations now than I was before; I've loosened up considerably
when it comes to harmonies, though my music is still essentially tonal. I
doubt that I will ever abandon tonality completely; but I just might find
a new area of it. To me, music is an amusement, a brilliant plaything for
me to enjoy; I am doing this strictly for fun - not to make money, not to
have the unwashed masses glorifying my name, not to have the sophisticates
gasp with amazement at the sound of my music - just to set down on paper
what I hear in my head. If, at some point, I find atonality fun to play
with, and start hearing atonal music in my head, I will write atonal
music, and it will be uniquely my own. At this point, what I hear in my
head is tonal, and that is what I will write.
If I were an artist, incidentally, I just might paint Miro-like blobs of
color or other "modern" things - modern art has a sense of humor and joy
in life that modern music lacks, at least to my ear.
<all of this discussion is making me really eager to go forth and write
more music; but alas, exam week does not permit such luxuries>
Justin Miller
You put too much work into despamming your reply-to address... =)
Justin Miller
Tore Lund
Interesting discussion. Whatever the outcome, you all seem to be
talking about "serious" music, as if it was the only one in existence.
There are in fact other types of music that are as far removed from
Mozart as a Motorola processor from an Intel. Some of that music has
captured the spirit of our times quite well, and it has done so with
very simple means, yet entirely without high-falutin' theories about the
profound qualities of nothingness. Just wanted to mention it.
--
Tore Lund <tl...@online.no>
Noam D. Elkies
>Interesting discussion. Whatever the outcome, you all seem to be
>talking about "serious" music, as if it was the only one in existence.
Yes, we are all talking about "serious" music, but it does not
mean that we are oblivious to other kinds (e.g. you may have seen a
mini-thread here on "light" music, and there are any number of posts
here about jazz harmony or rock/pop lyrics etc.). Indeed, one point
I forgot in my initial tirade is that contemporary vernacular/pop music
continues to draw, heavily if not as exclusively as did Tin Pan Alley
and the Beatles, on classical tonality. Quite a few of the more
recherche' branches of contemporary music have yet to leave any mark
at all on popular music, which is not to say that they couldn't --
anybody for isorhythmic or rhythmically serialized Rap?
Alyssa Wright
>
> Hmm. All that said - anyone got a dot matrix printer I could borrow? :)
Oh, Larisa -- don't you know that dot matrix printers are outdated?
<evil grin>
Alyssa
--
****************************************************************
Alyssa Wright
Cellist and Composer
http://www.interlog.com/~takenote/alyssa.htm
****************************************************************
Represented by:
Take Note! Promotion Phone: (416) 781-4393
Toronto, ON e-mail: take...@interlog.com
CANADA http://www.interlog.com/~takenote
Charlton W Wilbur
> Mozart never wrote a cello concerto, and Brahms never wrote an opera.
> So if you want to listen to something that sounds like one, or if you're
> a performer and want to perform one, it will have to be written now in
> that style.
But a modern composer will be thinking of things in terms that these
composers never thought of before. People who study Brahms's style
are probably going to be familiar with Schoenberg's theory of harmony
and Schenker's theory of large-scale structure, even though Brahms was
not: both theories can be applied quite handily to Brahms, and they
shed some light on him, though it's completely up in the air as to how
Brahms understood his music. Even on a different level: anyone who
might have the idea of writing a Mozart cello concerto is probably
going to have heard several other cello concertos, some written after
Mozart, not to mention the Beethoven symphonies. Writing a piece in
the style of Mozart or Brahms now is a different sort of statement
from writing a piece in the style of Mozart or Brahms in their day:
Brahms writing Brahms is a very different statement than Wilbur or
Elkies or Hogarth writing in the style of Brahms.
Truly great works change the perceptions of the people who hear
them. I'm not sure it's possible to hear Mozart piano concertos the
same way after hearing the Beethoven fourth. I'm not a Mozart
scholar, but I believe that the influence reading some Bach
manuscripts had on him is well-documented; imagine how hearing
Beethoven or Brahms, or reading Schenker and Schoenberg, would change
Mozart. Having heard Beethoven and Brahms and Cage and Schoenberg and
Bartok and Nancarrow and Ferneyhough and Glass, why do we want to
compose like Mozart again?
Charlton
Ted Peterson
This is one of the best posts I have read from this group to date. You
know, one time Isaac Asimov was asked if a person developing Pythagoras'
theorum today was any less of a genius than Pythagoras. His comment was
that it was less an act of genius because people today are surrounded
with things that are the direct result of the theory. I have felt
similarly to your sentiments.
> though it's completely up in the air as to how
> Brahms understood his music.
This is an interesting statement in the context of your post and deals
with a couple of things aesthetics and technique, which are your
referring to?
> Writing a piece in
> the style of Mozart or Brahms now is a different sort of statement
> from writing a piece in the style of Mozart or Brahms in their day:
> Brahms writing Brahms is a very different statement than Wilbur or
> Elkies or Hogarth writing in the style of Brahms.
Previously stated.
> Truly great works change the perceptions of the people who hear
> them. I'm not sure it's possible to hear Mozart piano concertos the
> same way after hearing the Beethoven fourth.
Well, I can relate to this. There were several times, in my musical
development, where I heard works that I knew would become guideposts to
me. When I first heard the Brahms "German Requiem" it was wonderful.
However, after hearing Pendereski's choral based works, the Brahms seems
less of a piece somehow. It's still a great piece but doesn't have the
impact of say K.P.'s St. John Passion for me.
Alain Naigeon
>
> At 23:18:12 on Sat, 5 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
> of Larisa Migachyov, as follows:
> >If I were born in the 19th century, would you be saying the same things?
> >century composer. :) I fail to see why my music is any less worthy of
> >consideration than the music of any other 19th century composer. :)
> >
>
> an absolutely stunning tribute to the wonders of man and modern
> technology.
But the PC that you've described is really more powerful than the ones
in usage in the 60s. It can said "better".
But you surely don't mean that today music is "better" than previous
one,
don't you ? Here it's a matter of taste, quite different from increasing
memory from 64 k to 4Mo. You can't measure aestethic progress...
--
Alain NAIGEON - Strasbourg, France - anai...@club-internet.fr
Visitez le site musical http://www.club-internet.fr/perso/anaigeon
(Barbireau, Brumel, Josquin, LaRue, Monteverdi, Sermisy, etc...)
Roy Buckle
(snip)
> I've got a bunch of art songs that I
> am rather proud of - but you really wouldn't want to hear me sing. :)
>
O yes we would!
--
Roy Buckle
Larisa Migachyov
:Larisa Migachyov wrote:
:>
:> Hmm. All that said - anyone got a dot matrix printer I could borrow? :)
:
:Oh, Larisa -- don't you know that dot matrix printers are outdated?
:<evil grin>
So would i have to use a laser printer instead? :)
Noam D. Elkies
Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>Alyssa Wright wrote:
>:Larisa Migachyov wrote:
>:> Hmm. All that said - anyone got a dot matrix printer I could borrow? :)
>:Oh, Larisa -- don't you know that dot matrix printers are outdated?
>:<evil grin>
>So would i have to use a laser printer instead? :)
No, it *must* be a dot matrix -- you know, original instruments and
all that. What will they think of next -- performing Leroy Anderson's
Typewriter Concerto on one of those newfangled computer keyboards?
--Noam D. Elkies (remove printer from e-address to reply)
Noam D. Elkies
Charlton W Wilbur <cwwi...@wilde.oit.umass.edu> wrote:
>Noam D. Elkies <elk...@mabsth.harvard.edu> writes:
>> Mozart never wrote a cello concerto, and Brahms never wrote an opera.
>> So if you want to listen to something that sounds like one, or if you're
>> a performer and want to perform one, it will have to be written now in
>> that style.
>But a modern composer will be thinking of things in terms that these
>composers never thought of before. [...] Writing a piece in
>the style of Mozart or Brahms now is a different sort of statement
>from writing a piece in the style of Mozart or Brahms in their day:
>Brahms writing Brahms is a very different statement than Wilbur or
>Elkies or Hogarth writing in the style of Brahms.
Brahms specifically is perhaps an exception, because he was himself
regarded even by people who should have known better as an unoriginal
purveyor of music in outdated idioms. But this aside, yes, certainly
it should be easier for us now to write such music than it was for
Brahms, because we have advantages that Brahms didn't: theories such
as Schenker's, and illustrative examples such as Brahms's. This is
exactly the reason I gave for suggesting that we can now strive to
write even better music along those lines once we discard hang-ups
about "outdated idioms". And yes, it is also a different kind of
"statement" from the composer's point of view because we are aware
of more stylistic options nowadays than was Brahms, let alone Mozart.
[Though some may suggest that avoiding these newly available sonorities
requires enough of a conscious effort to actually make it harder to
write Mozart in 1998 than it was in 1791; perhaps.] But as far as
the listener and performer go, if the music is as good or better
then why should it matter to the listener that whether it's an actual
Brahms piece or a fully competent pastiche, even if the latter's
composer didn't have to labor quite as hard as Brahms to construct it?
>anyone who might have the idea of writing a Mozart cello concerto is
>probably going to have heard several other cello concertos, some written
>after Mozart, not to mention the Beethoven symphonies.
Might not be an entirely bad thing -- if we're to imagine a cello concerto
Mozart would have written at age 50, he would by then have heard a few
Beethoven symphonies himself. :-)
>Having heard Beethoven and Brahms and Cage and Schoenberg and
>Bartok and Nancarrow and Ferneyhough and Glass, why do we want to
>compose like Mozart again?
Because Mozart's best music still speaks to us at least as powerfully
as any of those more recent luminaries and not-so-luminaries?
Because, having grown up playing more Mozart than Bartok, we speak
the former's language more fluently?
Because it is one of many options we now have, alongside Tallis and
Bach and Schubert and Shostakovich?
More to the point, Why not? After all, why should any composer have to
justify why he or she wants to compose in a certain way?
NDE (remove "?" from e-address to reply)
Noam D. Elkies
Ted Peterson <exin...@slonet.org> wrote:
>> Truly great works change the perceptions of the people who hear
>> them. I'm not sure it's possible to hear Mozart piano concertos the
>> same way after hearing the Beethoven fourth.
Some listeners have never had the opportunity!
>Well, I can relate to this. There were several times, in my musical
>development, where I heard works that I knew would become guideposts to
>me. When I first heard the Brahms "German Requiem" it was wonderful.
>However, after hearing Pendereski's choral based works, the Brahms seems
>less of a piece somehow. It's still a great piece but doesn't have the
>impact of say K.P.'s St. John Passion for me.
Looks like we again have here the false analogy with scientific
and technological progress. At least it seems false to me.
If you really feel that Beethoven's music was an advance over Mozart's
in the sense that having heard Beethoven you have no more need
for Mozart, and likewise Brahms over Beethoven, and (by now I'm
sure you've lost most of us) Penderecki over Brahms, then certainly,
we should forget about all but the latest and greatest music and
advance the frontiers opened by Penderecki, or by whoever has already
followed him and made *his* music obsolete. But to me (and surely not
to me alone) the idea that Penderecki's or Paert's passion setting
so much superior to Bach's that Bach's music actually loses its impact
is an absurd and abhorrent notion.
NDE (remove everything from e-address to reply)
Dennis Báthory-Kitsz
>
> Looks like we again have here the false analogy with scientific
> and technological progress. At least it seems false to me.
> If you really feel that Beethoven's music was an advance over Mozart's
> in the sense that having heard Beethoven you have no more need
> for Mozart, and likewise Brahms over Beethoven, and (by now I'm
> sure you've lost most of us) Penderecki over Brahms, then certainly,
> we should forget about all but the latest and greatest music and
> advance the frontiers opened by Penderecki, or by whoever has already
> followed him and made *his* music obsolete. But to me (and surely not
> to me alone) the idea that Penderecki's or Paert's passion setting
> so much superior to Bach's that Bach's music actually loses its impact
> is an absurd and abhorrent notion.
I won't take a view one way or the other on 'progress', but I will admit
that as each year passes, I get less and less interested in older music.
When I was younger, I used to feel a certain excitement of discovery at
each Bach or Mozart or Ockeghem or Beethoven or Dufay that I heard for
the first time, but now I have no patience for it. It feels stale, like
I've wasted years learning music that ultimately has no meaning for me.
I'm even losing touch with Schoenberg and Stravinsky and Webern as part
of a time too long past to be more than music for occasionally studying.
Yes, absurd and abhorrent though it may be to you, for me, Bach does
lose his impact after hearing Penderecki (maybe not Part...), just as
Ockeghem was finally displaced after hearing the almost unknown M. J.
Leach, whom I just discovered a few months ago.
I've been reading this thread wondering whether anyone one else actually
feels this way -- not an intellectual or professional defense of new
music, but a real, deep-down boredom with music from and for another
era, a distant continent, and vanished cultures. Much as I dislike (say)
Gavin Bryars' music, I'd prefer to hear anything of his to a Mozart
quartet, a Kievman symphony to Brahms, La Barbara to Verdi, any techno
to any country dances.
Dennis
--
Dennis Báthory-Kitsz
Malted/Media: http://www.maltedmedia.com/
The Middle-Aged Hiker: http://www.maltedmedia.com/books/mah/
Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar: http://www.maltedmedia.com/kalvos/
Ken Moore
<sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> writes
>At 10:16:55 on Sat, 5 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
>of Ken Moore, as follows:
>>Part may be writing in our time, but he is not writing for me.
>>Moreover, sounding even half like Chopin would be a much greater
>>achievement than sounding totally like Part. I suppose you might want
>>to do the latter for the money, but Andrew Lloyd Webber sells even
>>better.
>
>Andrew Lloyd Webber writes music completely devoid of artistic value.
Yes, but I don't think any of it is quite as boring to play as Part's
"Cantus in memory of Benjamin Britten". The last time I played that,
the conductor got lost (quite easily done: it all sounds pretty much the
same) and we overran by about 12 bars. When I ran out of music, I
thought "Oh bother, I've skipped a line" and looked around the orchestra
for some clue as to where we were. What was impressive was that everyone
was completely deadpan, just hanging on to the last chord, though, as we
discovered later, we were all in the same state.
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
Dana
Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote in article <6LExldAF...@lansdown.demon.co.uk>...
> At 00:18:52 on Sat, 5 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
> of Larisa Migachyov, as follows:
> >Samuel Hogarth wrote:
> >:
> >:Because the chances that anyone will write in a classical style in a way
> >:that is original, or in a way that outdoes Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven,
> >:are so slim. You can write neo-Classical music, adding a twist or a
> >:perosnal angle on the classical style, and sound original - although
> >:even that's been done now. You can't write I-IV-V music, with Alberti
> >:bass and exclusively functional harmony and all the rest of it and still
> >:be original.
> >:
> >"The" classical style? I think there is still a lot to be done with tonal
> >music - not necessarily sounding like bad imitations of Mozart, but
> >nevertheless tonal. Nor do I think that there is just one classical style
> >- there are many, and some that are still unexplored. The jazz idiom is
> >just one new twist on "tonal" music - many others doubtless exist.
> >
>
> There's certainly truth in that. Still, I would contend a large number
> of the modern-day composers writing tonally are bad imitations of Mozart
> who are not good enough composers to write in a modern style.
Well, I would not say that these composers are not "god enough" to write in modern styles, but there has to be something much deeper going on behind this notion of writing traditionally "tonal" music (i.e, music with key centers throughout).
Could it be that they want their music accepted by the widest possible "audience"? (Not that that is necessarily a bad thing).
I mean, who wants to be told by someone who finds Scriabin challenging, that their music sounds like a kitty running across a piano... ;)
Could it be that "tonal" music was the only type of music he or she listened to when they discovered classical music and thus feel the need to imitate their musical gods?
Or, what?...
There must be something going on at a deeper level.
Dana
<cdja...@fuse.net>
Dana
Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote in article <74cevk$bov$3...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
> Samuel Hogarth wrote:
> :At 02:25:03 on Sat, 5 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
> :of Larisa Migachyov, as follows:
>
> :>Thank you so much for saying this! I am sick and tired of people saying
> :>that being "original" (whatever that means) is somehow better than working
> :>in a tonal style. Perhaps, I should have been born in the early 19th
> :>century; that's where my musical style belongs to a large degree.
> :>However, to change that style to warmed-over Webern would be to be untrue
> :>to myself and to the music I hear in my head. Besides, I fail to see why
> :>warmed-over Webern is so much better than warmed-over Schubert. :)
> :<snip>
> :
> :Composing is a personal thing, and at the end of the day all this
> :conversation leads to is that you should compose what you feel you want
> :to say through your music. However, it is my personal belief that you
> :can't express yourself - or that I can't express myself - in anyone
> :else's style.
>
> But it's my style. It might resemble Chopin in some ways, but it is mine
> - quite identifiably so.
I'm sure your piece would sound slighty different from Chopin, but it would still probably sound like Chopin or whoever.
> People who have heard my music have no trouble
> identifying my style - it has many elements that are uniquely mine.
How does your style differ in melody, harmony, texture and form from some of the Romantic composers?
> Or
> are you saying that all Romantic composers sound the same?
Yes, but with slighth differences. Remember, Romantic music is Romantic music is Romantic music.
> And I'm
> expressing myself just fine with the musical language I have, thank you
> very much.
>
> If I were to try writing atonal music, OTOH, I'd definitely be incapable
> of turning out anything other than warmed-over Webern;
Which would be not unlike "warmed-over" Brahms or Tchaikovsky.
> but my tonal style
> is mine and mine alone, just like Chopin's style or Schubert's style or
> Weber's style is unique.
Sure, if you are talking about how, for example, Chopin wrote for the piano versus how Schubert wrote for the piano. Yes, differences in style of writing and even differences in "tonal" style -- as harmony advanced from Schubert to Chopin, for instance -- but their musical "styles" are still related to one another.
> If I were born in the 19th century, would you be saying the same things?
> Probably not, right? Well, consider me that rarity - a living early 19th
> century composer. :) I fail to see why my music is any less worthy of
> consideration than the music of any other 19th century composer. :)
Probably because it has been done before. ;)
Dana
<cdja...@fuse.net>
Dana
Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote in article <74epv3$437$2...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
> Samuel Hogarth wrote:
> :At 23:18:12 on Sat, 5 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
> :of Larisa Migachyov, as follows:
> :>If I were born in the 19th century, would you be saying the same things?
> :>Probably not, right? Well, consider me that rarity - a living early 19th
> :>century composer. :) I fail to see why my music is any less worthy of
> :>consideration than the music of any other 19th century composer. :)
> :>
> :
> :If you were a 386 computer with 4 meg of RAM in 1960, I'd think you were
> :an absolutely stunning tribute to the wonders of man and modern
> :technology.
>
> Do you really think that 19th century music is as far behind modern music
> as a 386 computer is behind modern computers? I understand what you mean
> - but I think that it applies more to technology than to artistic
> endeavor. A Pentium is better than a 386; it works faster and does more
> things. Is John Cage necessarily better than Mozart? The answer to that
> is not quite so clear to me. What does John Cage do better than Mozart?
Having seen the film "Amadeus" dozens of times, I am sure Cage probably didn't have as funny a laugh as Wolfie in the film... ;)
Dana
Again, I second that emotion as well...
Dana
<cdja...@fuse.net>
----------
David Lamb <dl...@oz.net> wrote in article <366ad...@news.oz.net>...
> Larisa wrote:
>
> >Well, consider me that rarity - a living early 19th
> >century composer. :) I fail to see why my music is any less worthy of
> >consideration than the music of any other 19th century composer. :)
> >
>
> Fair enough! Where can we hear some of your music? I would really like to
> hear some.
>
> David Lamb in Seattle
> <dl...@oz.net>
>
>
>
Dana
Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote in article <wruzNjAv...@lansdown.demon.co.uk>...
> At 23:10:27 on Sat, 5 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
> of Larisa Migachyov, as follows:
> >Samuel Hogarth wrote:
> >:
> >:I don't think it's fair to brand anyone who fears accidental plaigarism
> >:or failure to achieve originality when they write in a classical idiom
> >:as unoriginal. It just quite simply isn't possible to be original and
> >:write Mozart.
> >
> >Yes, but what if your natural affinity is for a Classical style? It won't
> >be Mozart - it'll be you.
> <snip>
>
> I used to think my natural affinity was for a classical style. Then I
> forced myself to learn to write modern music, mostly by listening to
> that of other people, because I knew that I could never get taken
> seriously as a composer if I didn't.
BINGO!!!!!! This was the *same* thing that I struggled with while trying to be taken serious as a composer. I too wrote imitations of Tchaikovsky (my favorite composer) and other of the Great Gods. But then I began thinking that no one on Earth will take me seriously. Just the thought of me entering such a piece in a music composition competition sends shudders all over me.
Also, when I began "composing", after having taught myself theory and harmony, I began to feel that my imitations just weren't *mine* -- even though I was a mere beginner, where imitation is allowed. So, I threw myself into studying modern styles and techniques and it has paid off for the better for me as a composer.
Dana
<cdja...@fuse.net>
> It's a little bit like not wanting to learn to touch-type because while
> you're learning you'll have to go slower than how quick you were before
> - even though at the end of it your speed will increase by 2 or 3 times.
> Maybe it's not for me to say, but I think maybe you would get more out
> of your composing if you were writing things that were both personal and
> original.
>
Dana
Ken Moore <k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk> wrote in article <AzoykDAX...@hpsl.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01be2018$642c95a0$b22b44d8@einstein>, Dana
> <cdja...@fuse.net> writes
> >For me, it because Part is writing in "our" time. Also, if I wanted to
> >listen tomusic that sounded like Chopin, I would listen to Chopin. ;)
>
> Part may be writing in our time, but he is not writing for me.
Nor is he writing for me.
> Moreover, sounding even half like Chopin would be a much greater
> achievement than sounding totally like Part.
Nope.
> I suppose you might want
> to do the latter for the money,
Why else would you do it?
> but Andrew Lloyd Webber sells even
> better.
Lloyd Webber's a whore.
Dana
<cdja...@fuse.net>
> --
> Ken Moore
> k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
>
Dana
Ken Moore <k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk> wrote in article <NS5h8PAT...@hpsl.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <pbx1xIAQ...@lansdown.demon.co.uk>, Samuel Hogarth
> <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> writes
> >At 10:16:55 on Sat, 5 Dec 1998, our lives were enlightened by the words
> >of Ken Moore, as follows:
> >>Part may be writing in our time, but he is not writing for me.
> >>Moreover, sounding even half like Chopin would be a much greater
> >>achievement than sounding totally like Part. I suppose you might want
> >>to do the latter for the money, but Andrew Lloyd Webber sells even
> >>better.
> >
> >Andrew Lloyd Webber writes music completely devoid of artistic value.
>
> Yes, but I don't think any of it is quite as boring to play as Part's
> "Cantus in memory of Benjamin Britten".
No, it's more boring.
>The last time I played that,
> the conductor got lost (quite easily done: it all sounds pretty much the
> same) and we overran by about 12 bars. When I ran out of music, I
> thought "Oh bother, I've skipped a line" and looked around the orchestra
> for some clue as to where we were. What was impressive was that everyone
> was completely deadpan, just hanging on to the last chord, though, as we
> discovered later, we were all in the same state.
Huh?... and you blame Part for this and not the conductor??...
Dana
sg...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article <749on1$16u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <Mzm8LNAM...@lansdown.demon.co.uk>,
> Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansup.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Because the chances that anyone will write in a classical style in a way
> > that is original, or in a way that outdoes Mozart/Haydn/early Beethoven,
> > are so slim. You can write neo-Classical music, adding a twist or a
> > perosnal angle on the classical style, and sound original - although
> > even that's been done now. You can't write I-IV-V music, with Alberti
> > bass and exclusively functional harmony and all the rest of it and still
> > be original.
>
> On the other hand, Schoenberg once said, "There's still plenty of good music
> to be written in C."
I am not aware that Mr. Schoenberg followed his own statement. Or, perhaps he meant it for students, because he did, afterall, teach tonal harmony.
Dana
<cdja...@fuse.net>
>
> Scott B.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
Samuel Vriezen
>> On the other hand, Schoenberg once said, "There's still plenty of good
>music
>> to be written in C."
>
>I am not aware that Mr. Schoenberg followed his own statement. Or, perhaps
>he meant it for students, because he did, afterall, teach tonal harmony.
Well, second chamber symphony for instance.
David Lamb
Dennis B thory-Kitsz wrote in message
> Much as I dislike (say)
>Gavin Bryars' music, I'd prefer to hear anything of his to a Mozart
>quartet, a Kievman symphony to Brahms, La Barbara to Verdi, any techno
>to any country dances.
This is one of the saddest things I have ever heard a musician say. There is
nothing here to argue about, but it immediately makes me want to hear
something by Mozart --- anything!
David Lamb in Seattle
Ted Peterson
But to me (and surely not
to me alone) the idea that Penderecki's or Paert's passion setting
so much superior to Bach's that Bach's music actually loses its impact
is an absurd and abhorrent notion.
If Bach had lived in a time that was as fixated with the music of the past as we are, I wonder if his output would have been as great or as profound. I don't know if the author of the above is a composer or not. But composers write music. If the style of Bach were the contemporary style, that is the way most composers would write. But it isn't. Bach's style is from the past and in that sense, is the same as a Rembrandt hanging in a museum. Nice to look at but the style of art has come a long way since then.
Ted Peterson, eXindigo!
David Cleary
: There's certainly truth in that. Still, I would contend a large number
: of the modern-day composers writing tonally are bad imitations of Mozart
: who are not good enough composers to write in a modern style.
I'd think that there are crummy composers today writing in lots of
different styles. Some of them are writing triadic functional-harmony
music and some are not. I'm not convinced it's the style that's to blame,
but the composer.
Dave
Ted Peterson
not an intellectual or professional defense of new
music, but a real, deep-down boredom with music from and for another
era, a distant continent, and vanished cultures. Much as I dislike (say)
Gavin Bryars' music, I'd prefer to hear anything of his to a Mozart
quartet, a Kievman symphony to Brahms, La Barbara to Verdi, any techno
to any country dances.
Ted Peterson, eXindigo!
Ted Peterson
This is one of the saddest things I have ever heard a musician say. There is
nothing here to argue about, but it immediately makes me want to hear
something by Mozart --- anything!
Ted Peterson, eXindigo!
David Cleary
: I used to think my natural affinity was for a classical style. Then I
: forced myself to learn to write modern music, mostly by listening to
: that of other people, because I knew that I could never get taken
: seriously as a composer if I didn't.
I'm not buying the last part of this. There are tonal, triadic composers
these days whose music is taken most seriously, including stuff by David
Lang, Richard Danielpour, George Rochberg, and Krzyzstof Penderecki. One
can also argue that the music of minimalists such as Glass and Reich is
tonal and triadic.
In fact, IMHO one of the best things about being an active composer now is
that one can write in any style one chooses, or change styles at will
(sometimes in the same piece--note some of Jonathan Kramer's music as such
an example). There is no "Paris Conservatoire one right way to compose"
these days.
: It's a little bit like not wanting to learn to touch-type because while
: you're learning you'll have to go slower than how quick you were before
: - even though at the end of it your speed will increase by 2 or 3 times.
I dunno. This suggests that art is an evolutionary thing that moves from
good to better to even better to ideal. I'm not convinced it's the truth.
: Maybe it's not for me to say, but I think maybe you would get more out
: of your composing if you were writing things that were both personal and
: original.
IMHO that's Larisa's choice. We composers all make choices with regard to
styles and how "career oriented" we want to be. That being said, there's
nothing wrong with kicking out the jams and trying new things
compositionally; it looks like you did and it paid off for you. But that's
IMHO very much a personal decision.
Dave
Noam D. Elkies
Ted Peterson <exin...@slonet.org> wrote:
>If Bach had lived in a time that was as fixated with the music of the
>past as we are, I wonder if his output would have been as great or as
>profound. I don't know if the author of the above is a composer or
>not. But composers write music. If the style of Bach were the
>contemporary style, that is the way most composers would write. But it
>isn't. Bach's style is from the past and in that sense, is the same as
>a Rembrandt hanging in a museum. Nice to look at but the style of art
>has come a long way since then.
If that Rembrandt can move you as a work of art (rather than a relic of
the past and/or a commodity worth umpteen million bucks) then indeed
so can a contemporary painting in the same style -- and there are also
painters today producing such work (isn't our own Jeff Harrington
married to one such?).
Bach is, like Brahms and even more so, an interesting special case:
as I noted previously in this thread, much of Bach's music was in a
style that already sounded antiquated in his lifetime; the greatness
and profundity of his music went largely unrecognized until about
a century later when it must have sounded even more antiquated.
"The way most composers write" is, at any rate, a red herring --
or rather, a herd herring. :-) In any age, "most composers" are
writing stuff that's hardly worth the paper it's written on, so
why take that as your guide?
(And as also noted earlier, yes, I am a composer myself, and find Bach's
music much more inspiring and influential to me than Penderecki's.)
NDE (remove a piece of Bach from e-address to reply)
Tony T. Warnock
Ken Moore
<cdja...@fuse.net> writes
>> "Cantus in memory of Benjamin Britten".
>
>No, it's more boring.
Have you ever played the "Cantus"?
>
>>The last time I played that,
>> the conductor got lost (quite easily done: it all sounds pretty much the
>> same) and we overran by about 12 bars. When I ran out of music, I
>> thought "Oh bother, I've skipped a line" and looked around the orchestra
>> for some clue as to where we were. What was impressive was that everyone
>> was completely deadpan, just hanging on to the last chord, though, as we
>> discovered later, we were all in the same state.
>
>Huh?... and you blame Part for this and not the conductor??...
I'm not blaming anyone, I just thought it was amusing that no-one seemed
to know when to stop (actually the Director of the conducting class
knew, but wasn't saying). Part's music sells; so does ALW's: I wouldn't
want to deprive them of their livelihoods. I would play either of them
if someone paid me enough or if there was a good enough piece on the
same programme, but I don't often listen to either.
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
Eric & Allison Peterson
of the replies to your question, but the guy with the substitutions seems to
be on track. The only thing I'd add is:
bIImaj7 for I to extend the ending if the melody is Tonic
bII7 for V if your song is kinda jazzy.
Whatever you do, just keep in mind that despite all the noise you may hear
from theorist and some composers, music should be entertaining! If it
sounds good to you after you sleep on it a few days, it'll probabaly sound
good to other people too.
lwr...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<744166$33q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Hello,
>
>I keep writing songs that almost always end up using chord sequences that
>include I IV V. Any ideas on how to learn more so that I can avoid this
>problem?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Larry