|
#1
01-10-2006, 09:19 PM
| |||
| |||
| The Future of Music? Here's an interesting idea to get your brains going... I was talking with a Flemish composer today (that is, from Flanders, a region of Belgium, for those of you who are unaware, as I was) and he said something that made me think. He is fairily far along in life and is thus of the "older school" of composers. He asked me what my style of compositions was and, as always, I told him that I have a hard time defining my style. Partly because I don't really want to be labled but also because I do so much in so many areas that I can't really pin myself down to a single description. But I digress. He said that things are different for composers now as opposed to when he studied. He said, "Composers are given such freedom nowadays...they can do what they want. When we composed all these new ideas (refering to serialism, minimalism, etc.) we were actually 'fighting the system'. We were taught very strictly about how to write music and it was partly out of that limitation from which came our art." That being said, here's a brief history lesson. Going back from before the Renaissance and even up through the Baroque period. Composers were in such high demand. Why? There were no CD players or IPodsfor people to listen to music. The only time that someone could hear what we have grown so accustomed to today was to actually go to a church or to a nobleman's house to hear this "heavenly" thing that was called music. There was nothing else like it and no way to duplicate it. Composers were magicians. Even later inthe Classical and Romantic periods, there was no equal to going to a concert and hearing the music of such grand masters as Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, the list goes on. Now taking what this composers said to me and applying it to history, this is what I get out of it: the greatest (or, what we deem to be the greatest) composers were those who were fighting against the system. Debussy, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Ives, Schoenberg... So now I come to my question. How will we as modern composers be remembered? How will we go down in history? We have nothing to fight against, we "have it easy" in the words of my new composers friend. Where do you see music going in the future? Have we or will we become stagnant as musicians? This really isn't meant as a desparing note, I'm just interested in hearing other peoples views about it. Anyway, it was on my mind so I thought I would share it. Chris  |
|
#2
02-10-2006, 01:47 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Ahhhhhhh you have brought up a good subject. This is exactly why I think that this is the most interesting time(musically) to be living in. There are no limitations, there are no rules to break. Every thing has been thrown ou by some composer or another. Every technique imaginable is open to composers today. We can write in any style we want, combine multible styles, or just creates new ones. No one will be recognized for going against the norm anymore. A composers talent in composition is all that matters. |
|
#3
02-10-2006, 09:53 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| I think now it all comes down to what composers use from what has already come before. A composer that can take in ideas from the past and reshape it to a new form or design will be the composers that will shape the future. Its taking all technqiues such as harmony, counterpoint, atonalism etc and using them together in a unique way that produces pleaseing music. That my take on it |
|
#4
02-10-2006, 10:52 AM
| ||||
| ||||
As for e. g. Shostakovich, he was raised and supported in the Conservatorie of Leningrad, and the general attitude within the arts was was modernistic. As this was supported by the top teachers, it was hardly about “fighting the system”. The scandal of “The Rite of Spring” by Stravinsky was a scandal because it was the first one, but this kind of excess modernism was quickly adopted by the mainsream, and indeed Shostakovich’ rather modernistic opera “Lady Macbeth of Mstensk”, sold full houses for two and a half years in the 1930s till Stalin heard it and disapproved. Suffice it to say, most composers, as pop artists, comply to the market, even if the market is a different one. There is easily a “modernist” market where melodic stuff is taboo, a “classical” market where so called “pop music” is the biggest taboo (have a look around this board!  ), etc. etc.What eventually survives is mostly about timing, and not necessarily creative quality. What is considered pop classics is both genuine creative stuff (early Beatles) and pure party music (early Rolling Stones). Your best bet as a composer is to try to listen to your inner voice: Anyone can copy others if they have a minimum of talent and a lot of effort, but not all can listen to their inner voices for new ideas.  Regards Last edited by Thorolf : 02-10-2006 at 11:57 AM. |
|
#5
02-10-2006, 05:09 PM
| |||
| |||
| Maybe we could try bringing back rules? But as I said in erlier post, I don't use much of rules, if it sounds like I want it to be, it is fine, I don't use periods intentionally, the chords aren't what they should be, and yadayadayada, I get called off by old-school composers, but people who are a bit more broadminded love it. Composing with rules is hard, really, I feel myself so forced into it, that I just can't produce music. Sticking to my story - I always write a full scenario before I start writing the actual music, otherwise I get distracted from my original goal and it gets rubbish - is hard enough for me oh oh oh who is the composer? *jumps up and down* |
|
#6
02-10-2006, 06:37 PM
| |||
| |||
So I agree with you in one sense. I think that some form of "rules" (however one can apply that term, I myself am very 'anti-rules') might take precedence at some point in time. There are just so many movements in the arts right now that there seems to be little focus. This IS a very interesting time to be living. I agree Thorolf, timing IS extremely important. My prediction is that something is going to rise out of all of these movements and ideas that is literally going to define this period (I guess one could call it the Messiah of music ). Maybe that means some sort of conventional rules or maybe it doesn't. I don't know what this thing will be and I can't even make a guess right now but I sure hope that I have a hand in it!*shrug* But that's just my prediction, I can't put any weight behind it besides what I think and believe. |
|
#7
15-10-2006, 11:39 PM
| ||||
| ||||
 !
And as he says, they DIDNT fight against a system, but got more remembered and down the story books, than no one else! |
|
#8
16-10-2006, 02:28 AM
| ||||
| ||||
um..... Beethoven totally fought against the system. |
|
#9
16-10-2006, 10:41 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Lots of good ideas going on here but one of the strangest things reading it, is everyones concept of "rules" and being "anti-rules". The way I see it, all of music is made of rules. You can't play a single chord without it being associated as a rule. So i'm always sceptical when people say I don't follow the rules or i'm anti-rules. It takes one composers to know the rules and be able to use them, it takes a real composer to be able to know the rules and break them effectively. Breaking the rules purly for the intention of breaking the rules is pointless. Even serialism which was deisgned specifically to be "out of the box" and counter the tonal creation of music is based upon strict rules. As regards to composer "fighting" the system, I agree with Thorolf, they were adapting to the system and moving along with its natural flow. In every art there are some people that "fight" the system but to be honest its a bunch of pertentious crap. They are fighting the system purly for the reason of fighting the system not for the sake of producing somthing good or as Throld says from their inner voice. I'm mostly referring to more modern music in this comment and not applying it to the likes of Beethoven. |
|
#10
16-10-2006, 12:42 PM
| ||||
| ||||
Of course they all fought in some way, Mozart fought too. |
| |
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
