What does it mean to be a 21st Century Composer? [Archive]

Jonny Lost

06-22-2006, 04:34 PM

Leaf

06-22-2006, 06:34 PM

I think when you begin an expression of creativity and art, you sometimes tend to feel it would be best left undissected.

:D OK, I'm just razzing you a bit, let me ponder it a while and i'll get back to you.

Ron St. Germain

06-22-2006, 06:57 PM

I think we're living in a cultural depression. Technology is obviously important to the 21st century composer but where are the great works? A tony went to Jersey Boys. It features no new songs. Now that's really saying something.

KeithW

06-22-2006, 07:06 PM

Hello everyone,

I posed this question to my composition students the last week of the quarter and recieved some interesting comments.

What does it mean to be a 21st Century Composer? It's a theoritical question that I've been pondering myself for quite a while.

If you look back over the past 400 years, you see the role of the composer change dramatically. They go from being servants in the 18th century; to larger than life "media" personalities in the 19th century; to Mathematically minded expansionists in the 20th. What will our role ultimately be? There are no right or wrong answers.

From time to time, I like to throw out question like this because I feel that too often, educators concentrate too much on the "nuts and bolts" of education and not enough actual "teaching". I don't mean facts or procedures. I think an educators main role is to "teach"students how to think. I'm not saying brainwash here, either. :) This may not make any sense because I don't think I'm stated it correctly. Oh well, it's just a question . Take it or leave it.

I'd really be interested to see what everyone thinks.

Talk to you soon,
Jonny I probably am not qualified to give my opinion here- I'm not a composer. But maybe an outside opinion would be welcome, anyway. Being a composer (in my opinion) has always been about two things- ability to make a living doing what they love doing and being creatively independent. I would be really interested to see how they taught in the Russian schools between about 1860 and the Revolution. Either they had some extraordinarily gifted students or they had some really good teaching techniques- or both. Probably both. And before anybody takes offense that I'm implying that our schools are not teaching as well or better than back then, I'm not. If you take somebody like Igor Stravinsky and look at his stylistic periods, his orchestrating abilities, his compositional & orchestral innovations, I'd like to see 21st century composers study this and other "well rounded" composers.

As for what will your role utimately will be, I posit that it will be the same as it's always been: creating works that people like and people want to hear, being "rock stars" like John Williams is, and the ability to make a living doing it.

Keith Walls

Hannes_F

06-22-2006, 09:17 PM

My 2 c so far:

Asking about how a professional composer could do is equal to the question where her or his market could be.

Classical composers earned quite a part of their money by selling the music to publishers ... who then sold the sheet music to any household that had daughters to educate. No kidding.

Another target group were crowned heads that could afford buying an opera or a symphony.

Both needs are gone.

stevebryson

06-22-2006, 10:26 PM

Hi - This is a really interesting question, which forces many issues that are dear to my heart.

The first issue that comes to mind is: who counts as a composer?

While one can simply define a composer to be someone who makes their living composing (similar to how I would define a physicist), there are several "major" composers who do not fit this definition. Borodin and Ives come to mind and I'm sure there are more.

The power and ability of amateur (or shall we say "non-professional") composers have been radically expanded in the last three decades as part of the computer revolution. This has brought what was previously inaccessable high-end music production capabilities into the hands of anyone who can afford a computer. This radical democritization of the ability to create (as opposed to compose) music potentially makes anyone a "21st century composer".

Our fearless leader Gary is, of course, one of the leading drivers in this revolution, as is this very course.

But of course the above does not imply a radical democritization of the ability to compose music :D. Does someone who wrote a GPO-based string quartet for just themselves and their (very polite and understanding) families count as a composer? Does it make a difference if the composition is very (how to put it politely?) simplistic vs. a beautiful and competent composition? What about people taking this course who (like me) have full-time non-musical jobs yet win the orchestral competition (I can dream...) at the end with an original composition? I hope that's likely to happen.

I don't pretend to know the answer to the question "who counts as a composer?". I'd love to hear other's perspectives.

The second issue: wide scope and expanding horizons

Something we can all see happening to music right now comes from the ease with which anyone, anywhere in the world, can make music and transmit it to the rest of the world. The resulting mix of influences and imagination, as well as the ability to treat sound in completey new ways, has and will continue to lead to new approaches and paradigms of musical composition.

I won't presume to define a "21st century composer", but I certainly expect 21st century compositions to push sound and music into all kinds of directions. The musical pallette has gotten very large and is growing, and though a composer may work within a highly restricted sub-space of that pallette, I would hope that restriction is by choice, with awareness and respect for other options.

So that's my 2 cents (after inflation).
steve

Sepheritoh

06-23-2006, 08:29 AM

A very interesting discussion topic!

I am no profesional composer in the sense that I make any money from composing, but I'd like to share my opinion.

We are only 6 years into the 21st century and, as none of us are profesional prophets, none of us can answer this question. We'd however be qualified to give an opinion on what a late 20th / early 21st century composer is. This is not taking a wipe at you - just an observation - as I very much find the topic interesting.

IMHO a composer does not have to be profesional to be called a composer, but it is much more likely that the profesionals will be remembered for a much longer time than the bedroom composers. One way of looking at the question is to try and guess what somebody 100 years into the future will regard as the factors that distinguish 20st century composer from say 19th century composers.

Stylistic there are huge differences. Since Holtz, Debussy, etc etc the classical rules were challenged and compositions show greater freedom. The great successes like John Williams and ndrew Loyd Webber would probably be regarded as great examples of our times.

The medium for which are being composed has changed. FIlm has taken the place of opera and symphony halls. Atonality has almost become norm and melody has taken a step backwards to mood and emotion. Maybe Davis, Howard etc are not yet successful enough to be regarded as good examples, but this style of music is well established.

Successful composers today are financially much more well-off than the classical composers who often were happy to recieve their daily bread from the king's favours. There are much more possibilities for composers. The technology has been mentioned many time in this thread. Composers today has a wide choice of media to compose for. There is popular music, recorded, life, radio, TV, film, theatre etc. 200 years ago the choices were so much more limited.

These are only my 2c worth.

Jonny Lost

06-23-2006, 11:22 AM

Good thoughts guys. Keep them coming!!!

When I was younger, and I thought about music in the 21st century, (Yes, even as a youngster I was eccentric, leave me alone!!! :D) I used to think that music would only be enjoyed by machines. By the way, I also thought that I would have a flying car and an apartment on the moon. :)

Oh well, here's to wishing!!

Keep up the discussion,
Jonny

dermod

06-23-2006, 11:33 AM

A composer today, like a composer before, must be two things. A person who can express himself with distinction in the realm of sound. And, a person who has to eat and pay the rent. Concerning paying the rent, and looking at the situation from a dispassionate height, it has to be said that music is a vast industry with many facets, and the opportunities for the individual can never have been greater than now. Concerning the ability to express oneself in sound, I am sadly reminded of the world-weary comment of the journalist-pundit of a few decades ago, Malcolm Muggerdige, who said (something like): for the first time in history, everybody has the means to listen, unfortunately, nobody has anything of interest to say.

Dermod

Leaf

06-24-2006, 01:44 AM

If music is the universal language, the role of 21st century composer would be to keep the conversation interesting. I believe it is not known as the universal language just because all people of every cuture have always made music, but also because music touches the soul.

I like KeithW's answer, "Being a composer (in my opinion) has always been about two things- ability to make a living doing what they love doing and being creatively independent"

I have always believed if you don't love what you do for a living, you're in the wrong business, and should start doing what you love. Of course some people don't want to do it for a living and love to create Music, and thats good too. When people are doing what they love, they are doing what the Creator who created them with their interests and passions, intended for them, if not they are missing it.

rickc

06-24-2006, 04:46 AM

I've been a professional musician all of my life (53yrs old). I must very strongly state that being an artist and working professionally in todays culture are almost completely at odds. The best, deepest musicians I know do not make much money from their greatness. They make their money doing things that are fairly light and meaningless. Professional means more than making money from composing in my book. I write "string quartets" for my soul. I perform and work in the studios for money.

Regardless of the timeframe or style of a composer, it is the truth that one speaks that make one an artist.

Cantabile

06-24-2006, 01:12 PM

I usually stay clear of debate topics as the essentials usually boil down to personal opinion as to what one thinks is good/bad ect. It is human nature and the one thing that has not changed in history.Debates can continue endlessly over such things, as again has always been the case with history. However this topic seems to be stearing clear of that so far! :)

My curiosity on this was peaked when I thought about improvisation. It is one of the things I love and have done for ages. But do people consider this a form of composition since it is not written down? It certainly is "creation". However unlike sitting and thinking about something, this form of creation is spontanous. There is no time to sit and think about something, nor write it down, as that would entail a screw up in a live situation!. So is the improviser a composer ? A good question to ask oneself.

SeanHannifin

06-24-2006, 03:06 PM

What does it mean to be a 21st Century Composer? It's a theoritical question that I've been pondering myself for quite a while.

If you look back over the past 400 years, you see the role of the composer change dramatically. They go from being servants in the 18th century; to larger than life "media" personalities in the 19th century; to Mathematically minded expansionists in the 20th. What will our role ultimately be? There are no right or wrong answers.

I'm not sure the role of the composer has actually changed that dramatically. Perhaps the means by which the famous ones composed music, but even then saying "they go from being servants in the 18th century, etc." is very generalizing. Likewise you could say the role of music itself has changed, but I don't think it has in the sense that the reasons people enjoy listening to music in the first place haven't changed.

That said, I don't think being a Nth Century Composer has any significant general meaning.

Perhaps it could have a personal meaning if the composer thinks the century in which he lives is a significant aspect of what he's trying to accomplish with his music.

SeanHannifin

06-24-2006, 03:16 PM

So is the improviser a composer ? A good question to ask oneself.

Of course! My guess is that the brain uses the same processes for general composition and improvisation. After all, I think general composition itself is based on the fruits of improvisation. Improvisation is the act merely spitting out the brain's output, while general composition tends to include embellishing and polishing the brain's output after it is spat out.

rickc

06-24-2006, 05:26 PM

Improvisation in the context of composing is as stated earlier, a means to get a looser more flowing statement that later can be "cleaned up". Improvisation in the context of playing with other improvisors captures a moment of human colaboration that can only happen once. That to me is the beauty of improvisation. Composing on the other hand is more like creating a (hopefully) beautifully balanced sound machine or sculpture.

The contemporary composer should have the skills and techniques available from the past development of the art. It is ridiculous to say that a 21st century composer is anyone composing in the 21st century! Have you heard some of the "compositions" of the people using programs like GPO to elaborate and lift their "new age" meanderings?

I know I'm strongly opinionated. I hope I only contributed to the topic and didn't discourage anyone from creating what is true for them.

Ron St. Germain

06-24-2006, 05:36 PM

"The contemporary composer should have the skills and techniques available from the past development of the art. It is ridiculous to say that a 21st century composer is anyone composing in the 21st century! Have you heard some of the "compositions" of the people using programs like GPO to elaborate and lift their "new age" meanderings?"

I'm not clear what you meant. It's impossible to have the skills available from the past development of the art and of course the techniques are available. I also believe one man's meanderings are another man's art. You also say it's ridiculous to say that a 21st century composer is anyone composing in the 21st century, but that's exactly what it is. You're assuming a level of knowledge or achievement (such as a doctor receiving his diploma) where it does not apply (fortunately or unfortunately)

Jonny Lost

06-24-2006, 06:49 PM

Hey guys,

I'm glad to see so many interesting thoughts and comments on this topic. I'll admit, it is a very controversal one, depending on how you view composition.

"The contemporary composer should have the skills and techniques available from the past development of the art."

I agree to this statement only as far as saying you have to know what has come before. Also, I believe that in order to "break the rules" and do whatever you feel like, "you should know the rules."

I would say in my own writing, I follow part writing and theoritical rules about 2% of the time. The other 98% is done following what I hear in my head and heart. However, I have the background and knowledge to know when to break a rule, or when to follow my gut? Does that make sense to anyone other than me? :)

On the other hand, I can't ignore the power and artistry of many "self-taught" composers. I know people who can write circles around me and have never taken a day of music theory or just basic lessons on an instrument, such as piano and guitar. I myself was once a "self taught" composer before I went to school for Composition. So, I really can't ignore that aspect of the field.

My father always says one thing to me when we get talking about work. He says, "J.W., it all boils down to one thing, knowing your craft!" Either way you look at it, in my opinion, that's what this all comes down too.

Let's keep the discussion going.

Jonny

Cantabile

06-24-2006, 08:29 PM

Improvisation in the context of composing is as stated earlier, a means to get a looser more flowing statement that later can be "cleaned up". Improvisation in the context of playing with other improvisors captures a moment of human colaboration that can only happen once.

I know I'm strongly opinionated. I hope I only contributed to the topic and didn't discourage anyone from creating what is true for them.

I'm glad you stated that is your opinion on the topic:) Since most debates about music are. It is only human nature for one's personal preference to reflect their views. If we were all the same then what a bland world it would be! I freely admit that what I think is just my own opinion. Some are not so readily free to admit that. Thanks for admitting this as it will not discourage people from posting on the subject.

This is where I can put in an opinion. I have heard improvisations that gave me more goosebumps then a well thought out masterwork. ;) Guess this is one of the reasons I find I like Chopin so much compared to most romantic composers. His music tends to have a "spontanous" feel alot of the time.

SeanHannifin

06-24-2006, 09:32 PM

Rules again! :D Remember that even though music can come from the heart or whatever, that doesn't mean it's not using theoritical rules. You don't have to be conscious of them for them to be part of your work.

The contemporary composer should have the skills and techniques available from the past development of the art.

That's assuming the art has a set direction in which it's working towards, which it does not. In other words, contemporary artists are under no obligation to study or learn from previoius artists. (Be sure to read that carefully. :D ) Unless of course I misunderstand your words.

rickc

06-25-2006, 03:09 AM

I agree to this statement only as far as saying you have to know what has come before. Also, I believe that in order to "break the rules" and do whatever you feel like, "you should know the rules."

My father always says one thing to me when we get talking about work. He says, "J.W., it all boils down to one thing, knowing your craft!"

Jonny

I agree completely and that is what I was trying to say. The question was, "What does it mean to be a 21st century composer" I presumed that the question was put in the context of the development of music. In that sense certain writings done in the 21st century may have no connection at all to the development of the art up until now. If a scientist is rehashing work done by 5th century scientists because that is as far as his understanding of science goes, is he a 21st century scientist?

Also being self taught and being ignorant of modern techniques are not exclusive of one another. Many a devoted self taught musician has created brilliant works. The emphasis here should be on the word "taught".

Aeterna

07-06-2006, 03:31 PM

I myself was once a "self taught" composer before I went to school for Composition. So, I really can't ignore that aspect of the field.

Hey! Me too!

(Perhaps I should introduce myself ...)

I'm Emily. :) I'm currently a composition student at Grand Valley State University (it's in Michigan), and will be going into my Junior year next fall.

Back to the subject at hand. A few people have touched on the style of 21st century music, but I think I'll elaborate on that a little. Many times, I've heard the progression of eras in music history being compared to the swinging of a pendulum from one extreme of order and clarity to the other extreme of emotion and sentiment. I'm of the opinion that we're swinging back to emotionalism here in the 21st century, having just come out of the very well ordered 20th century.

This is, of course, a very sweeping (ha, pun!) generalization, and I realize that it does not apply to all modern music (or even to all music of the 20th century, to be sure), but I think it has some merit.

Much love,
Emily

richtig

07-13-2006, 01:31 AM

Almost any aspect of the definition of "composer" will have counter-examples, e.g.:

Earns money from composing - many didn't. Curiously, Sorabji refused to allow performance of most of his works! Writes music that is substantially original - most don't! Self-image of iconoclast - only a few (e.g.,Beethoven, Chopin, Stravinsky, Messiaen)

So the real questions for me are: What makes a piece of music truly original? How does the composer of original music reconcile orginality with having the music performed/listened-to?

I believe that, thankfully, much of the sterile ground of atonal and aleatoric music has had its day, and the 'successful' modern composers are returning to some aspects of the romantic tradition. Above all 'good' music has to have an emotional content, that is, it has to move the listener either physically (dancing, to-tapping), or reach deeply into the brain's emotive structures to render appropriate feelings.

etLux

07-13-2006, 02:07 AM

What does it mean to be a 21st Century Composer?

That's a darned interesting question, but I certainly
don't know the answer.

And if the emphasis is on "21st Century", it may be
too soon to tell.

Then again, I didn't know the answer to this in the
20th Century, either...

David
www.DavidSosnowski.com
.

Leaf

07-13-2006, 08:33 PM

(Perhaps I should introduce myself ...)

I'm Emily. :) I'm currently a composition student at Grand Valley State University (it's in Michigan), and will be going into my Junior year next fall.

Welcome to the forum Emily!

That's a darned interesting question, but I certainly
don't know the answer.

And if the emphasis is on "21st Century", it may be
too soon to tell.

Then again, I didn't know the answer to this in the
20th Century, either...

David
www.DavidSosnowski.com
.Go ahead and round it off to a millennium, what is it to be a third millennium composer, maybe too soon to tell. Will history be kind to us when they look back at ancient times, when people made music by rubbing violins with a stick with horsehair streatched across it. :)

etLux

07-13-2006, 08:52 PM

(Perhaps I should introduce myself ...)

I'm Emily. :)

Gosh, where are my manners!

WELCOME EMILY!

All my best,

David
www.DavidSosnowski.com
.

Aeterna

07-14-2006, 11:12 AM

Thanks for the warm welcome! :)

I believe that, thankfully, much of the sterile ground of atonal and aleatoric music has had its day, and the 'successful' modern composers are returning to some aspects of the romantic tradition. Above all 'good' music has to have an emotional content, that is, it has to move the listener either physically (dancing, to-tapping), or reach deeply into the brain's emotive structures to render appropriate feelings.

Are we now getting into the debate over whether atonal or aleatoric music is necessarily "sterile"? I have to disagree with you there. Certainly taking those techniques to their extreme -- where the point of the music becomes the lack of tonality or the randomness -- results in calculated, sterile music, but I tend to believe that if the point of your music is a technique -- any technique -- rather than an expressive intent, it's bound to be sterile. On the other hand, aleatory and atonality can indeed be used for expressive purposes. I'm starting to venture into those areas myself, and it's quite an interesting journey!

I'm editing this message to remind myself that I shouldn't make categorical statements. In contradiction with what I just said, Ravel's Bolero just came to mind. The point of that piece was the orchestral crescendo, and it's certainly not sterile by any stretch of the imagination. That said, I still hold to my above opinion in a general sort of way.

Prowland

07-17-2006, 06:12 PM

Professor,

Down through the centuries, I am sure that each era had someone ask that very question. I think that our answers are probably about the same as their answers were then. We create. We push the bounderies of what our ancestors did. We add to and rebel against what they did. We never really know what we are going to be remembered for by subsequent generations. Rest assured that they will probably see some sort of an underlieing theme that our era cannot even grasp.

When you are in a forest all you see are individual trees and not the overall shape of the forest itself. We are the trees fighting for our share of the light.

Goodness... that was almost a coherent thought! Owwwww! My brain is protesting the deep thoughts! LOL

I hope my answer was, at least, vaguely understandable! LOL

RValle

07-26-2006, 09:02 AM

Hello Everyone.
I'm new to this Forum, and decided to introduce myself as Emily did, and also make comments about the topic.
My name is Rafael Valle, I come from Brazil ( Rio de Janeiro ) and actually I study composition at UNIRIO ( with Ricardo Tacuchian ), and Conducting at UFRJ( with André Cardoso ).

I belive that any composer should, in a lato sensu, master counterpoint, harmony, orchestration but, also and mainly, master rethoric and this cannot be taught on music.
I also believe that any composer should master all the techniques avaiable, for example, Serialism, Variations, Audio processing ( Plugins, MAX... )
And for the last, but not the least, master all the aesthesis that precedes him and that are conteporary to him.

At this point, I think this composer would be able to do create something new, as did Debussy with his harmonies, or Penderecksi with his clusters.
The main differences between them is that Debussy re-organized something that did exist, while Penderecski created something from nowhere.
I've met Penderecksi personally and some friends asked what would be the future of music, in aspects of aesthesis. He said his music hasn't change much for 20 years and that he has mixed his Avant-Garde experience with neo-classical music, but that he did know the future of music.

To reconcile originality with having the music performed/listened-to, the composer should be good at rethoric, seduce the listener. But, I don't know what would be truly original music, and if you know it, "please tell me that I want to compose that." ( Pendecksi )

Saying that music has emotional content, in my point of view, is a Romantic tought. On contrary, I think we create the emotional content of the music. If music had an emotional content, then we would be able to have equal "emotional answers" about it's emotional content.
I look forward hearing your ideas.
All the best for everyone.
Rafael Valle

Aeterna

07-26-2006, 11:49 AM

Hmmm ... are you saying that a composer must know everything there is to know about music before he/she can create something new? I would have to disagree there. I suppose, in a manner of speaking, you would have to know about all music ever composed in order to know for certain that what you're writing hasn't been written before, but then again, who can learn all of that?

Of course, I am, in no way belittling the value of learning more about music if you really want to compose something not only creatively brilliant, but technically brilliant as well. I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't knowledge that makes a great composer, it's creativity. Of course, a composer with little knowledge and much creativity may end up "creating" an idea that's already been used without his/her knowing it. But I don't see anything essentially wrong with that. Before I went to college, I used my creativity to stumble upon a plethora of interesting musical ideas that I later learned were well-established rules in music. Far from being disappointed that my ideas weren't original, I was thrilled to learn that my ideas had been proven before my time, and it has instilled in me a belief that music is an intuitive and universal language.

I hope I'm making sense.

Oh, and welcome to the forum, Rafael! I look forward to hearing more from you. :)

etLux

07-26-2006, 12:19 PM

Welcome Rafael and Aeterna!

It's great to see such lively discussion on this topic!

Best,

David
www.DavidSosnowski.com
.

RValle

07-27-2006, 12:48 AM

Maybe my words are not so clear.
There are two kinds of originality :
Related to past musical experiences ( Beethoven's Great Fugue ).
Not related to past musical experiences ( John Cage's 4`33 ).

Knowing "everything", the composer w o u l d be able to create something new based on past musical experiences.
To create something not related to past musical experiences obviously doesn't d e p e n d on musical experience, otherwise it would be a paradox.

It is easier to judge if a piece of music is truly original, by knowing all the music that has been composed. Fortunately, it's also possible to recognize truly original music without knowing all the music. ( Villa-Lobos, Wagner, Palestrina )

I also don't like taking creativity and inspiration in a Romantic sense.
For me, they only exist a posteriori, and are a direct product of what we live, not only what we hear. But, if you're using creativity in a term of extensive brain working, I would prefer the term technique.
You mentioned the composer who has "little knowledge and much creativity and ends up creating something that's already been used". Don't you think that, if he spent time with knowledge, the learning process would be faster?

You said also about well-stabilished rules in music.
Are you mentioning about the rules directly related to our hearing limitations? If not, I don't believe music has rules, but it has empiric paradigms.
I'm looking forward reading ideas from all of you.
Best regards,
Rafael Valle.:)
P.S.: Sorry If I was rude anywhere in my message.