Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge Exploring New Ground

First off, Jared, I mentioned the underlying classicism of all music at least a dozen times in this thread.

Secondly, this thread is about advancing classical music. There is nothing to disagree with there. If you don't like the notion, don't participate, just as I don't horn in when players are discussing certain composers whose music I detest.

You do not speak for the many theorists who take this matter seriously and follow it closely. You also do not speak for those for whom technique is of great interest. You may not like the technical aspect as though "you're writing down physics problems", but if it strikes you that way, don't participate. All you end up doing is derailing the thread and annoying me.

I simply disagree with the barrier between "art" and "commercial" music. I think that the existence of that perceived barrier is the cause of many of the problems you're bringing up. I would love to discuss this, if that isn't too much of a digression for your thread. I feel that the opinions I gave were very much relevant to your topic and non-derailing. I have re-read all of what you wrote so many times that I don't think I could possibly understand your purpose more clearly without swapping brains with you. I disagree with you on a couple core things, and beyond that, you and I are really fighting the same battle. This grumpiness is stupid.

Watch out for trolls, even in places like this.

There is and always has been a barrier between art music and commercial music, Jared. Musicians have always been aware of it, and it is not merely a matter of perception.

In fact, musicians periodically fight back. Some notable examples in the jazz world alone are Edward Kennedy (Duke) Ellington, Artie Shaw, John Burks (Dizzy) Gillespe, Thelonious Monk, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck, and many others.

In the Lower Mainland, British Columbia, Canada, the Punk/New Wave/Indie movements in the late 70's, early 80's were a rebellion against commercial control and commercial music. Many pioneers from that period are still very active today.

The main difference between art music and commercial music is that art music represents musical and artistic values, whereas commercial music is controlled by people who don't know anything about music and don't care, and the music is ephemeral product.

What I mean by the latter can best be summed up by my own personal experiences in the publishing industry. This is where the standard novel format (50,000 to 55,000 words, an average of 10 chapters at around 5000 words per chapter) is still the norm. Some notable examples include Harlequin Romance, Harlequin Presents, crime fiction published by Black Dagger Publications, and many others. When you write fiction of this type, you're given strict guidelines which prevent you from producing a work of lasting value. What they want is high turnover, something cheap that will be read once and thrown away, like a Bic lighter.

In the commercial world (and I know this from many years of personal experience- I've owned two music studios over the years and produced a good many commercials for radio and television), you always have someone breathing down your neck, telling you what to do. Your creative output is relegated to trying to inject some level of intelligence into the music despite these clowns and their continual interference. That's a far cry from being able to expend all of your energies on a work of quality.

Gsmonks - I agree with you. I have had much different experiences in the past that have consequently shaped my opinions differently than yours. All I will add is that although the difference you mention is definitely present, it's not nearly as stark as you make it sound. There's almost nothing but gray area; there's virtually no "purely art" music or "purely commercial" music by the -and I admit- wonderful definitions you give. Most music comes from some sort of mix. Also, even if one is to try to avoid commercial mass-production bullcrap, that doesn't necessarily mean that the musician in question is then forced to utilize primarily technical means of producing artistic music. I would argue that most of the mass-produced pop music is sadly and pitifully lacking in emotion and depth. I love Rachmaninov's first Symphony because it wrenches my emotions first, and makes me think second. I laugh at the lack of feeling in Justin Bieber's cookie-cutter scripted music. What I'm saying is, trying to advance new ideas in artistic or "classical" music doesn't mean you must neglect the use of emotion as a primary means of composition.

Thanks Eweiss!

Well witty isn't too bad gsmonks. I can live with that.

Yeah, like the popular music of George Gershwin, Scott Joplin, and Percy Granger - to mention a few.

John

I don't know anything about Percy Granger, but the Gershwins and Joplin were fortunate to be alive at a time when art music was the popular music of the day. Caruso was one of the popular favourites in the world of 78 rpm records, Paul Whiteman's orchestra was producing popular jazz classics in the 1920's, and Tin Pan Alley was populated with ex-patriot European classical musicians and composers who produced some of the great music of the early 20th century, which today is seen as a Golden Age of popular music. John Philip Sousa was selling a lot of records at the time, Richard Strauss, Rachmaninoff, Khatchaturian, Stravinsky, Hindemith, Holst, Shostakovich and a host of other classical composers and performers were very much alive and well. The American Novel was in its heyday, Picasso and many other famous artists were very much alive and active, Existentialism and its thinkers were well under way, the big newspapers were thriving, the car industry was exploding, and the world was enjoying an unprecedented period of economic wealth.

It amazes me how quickly others can judge someone else's music yet have nothing to show of their own. BTW, it is original. You may not like it, but it's something that's never existed before - therefore original.

Thanks eweiss! And that's more in line with my definition of originality.

John

"I don't know anything about Percy Granger" - gsmonks

Born late 19th century - died 1961. One heck of a pianist. His music was frowned on by the classical elite of the day - mainly because his music was popular. Of course today his music is well respected even by the snobbiest of the classical snobbery.

You can see him play live here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5d53hnXvmA

John

Um . . . guys . . . if you check, you'll see that I've placed four books of my piano music for free download on this site. And that 196 pages is just a collection of my "guilty pleasure" music, written on the side.

So . . . I have plenty to show of my own. Plus I've been teaching composition for over 30 years. So I a) know what I'm talking about, and b) am not just some kid talking through my hat.

Okay, now this is some tasty technique:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDosOA7ru9E&NR=1

I love learning new stuff! Thanks, John!

BTW, guys, I wasn't being critical- I was making an observation.
Here's another: the type of originality you're referring to reminds me very much of David Wisdom's old CBC radio show Brave New Waves. He would play music written by young guys on their 4-track portastudios, and some of it was very interesting. David would talk at great length about how original the music was.

However, while the music was original to the young guys sending it in, it was nothing we hadn't heard a bazillion times before. Having played in Punk and New Wave bands myself in the 1970's, I'd heard this same music two decades before.

The mere mention of genuine originality is something that seems to get up the nose of young musicians these days. Instead of paying their dues and doing many years of hard work in order to achieve genuine originality, they tend to shoot the messenger instead, and try to claim that originality is whatever they feel like dubbing "originality".

However, as I and a host of others have said before me, you can't argue with or deny four-hundred years of accumulated knowledge and experience. You can thumb your nose at it all you like, but you're not accomplishing anything useful.

I guess we should come up with an ironclad definition of originality. Though we could never find one we all agreed on.

Ans: something original, e.g. a new idea or approach. Peculiar Nightmare would fall into "new approach" at the very least.

Synonyms: novelty, uniqueness, inventiveness, innovativeness, creative, freshness, imagination, ingenuity - again, would fit into some of those synonyms.

John

Yes, Percy Grainger was quite a musician. Quite a personality too.

A touch of the Alzheimer's or are you just attempting to increase your post count for some reason? I thought you said you were out of here.

I still don't understand this "guilty pleasure" concept. Why does the creation of ANY type of music have to make you feel guilty? Just because you aren't breaking new ground doesn't mean you aren't creating something legitimate enough to feel proud of rather than guilty.

I still defend my position that it is impossible to create 100% original music. If you are making music at all, you are inevitably creating organized sound, which has been done before. Simply by calling your creation "music," you forfeit total originality. There is no black and white here, but rather degrees of originality, which are obviously quite subjective. As Johnny-Boy said, a standard can't really be established on such an opinion-driven issue. You can't call one piece of music entirely original and another piece of music completely non-original.

In my experience, artists who strive for absolute originality often make the worst (my opinion) art. Don't be afraid to look backwards occasionally in the pursuit of progress.

This isn't a post. It's abuse, and therefore will be reported to the mods.

A guilty pleasure is the enjoyment of something you shouldn't like. For example, I like old-time fiddle music despite the fact that I'm a classically-trained musician.

Dunno why you can't wrap your head around the notion. It's pretty much universal.

No one ever said anything about any music that is 100% original. By "original", we're talking "new", not "100%" original, and by "new" it is meant that a new range of expression has been brought to the table. Bach counterpoint with its liberal use of dissonance brought a new musical vocabulary to the table. Chromaticism brought a new musical vocabulary to the table. Serialism brought a new musical vocabulary to the table. Bitonality brought a new musical vocabulary to the table. And so on.

Which reminds me, someone earlier in this thread made some disparaging remarks about serialism. I was going to remind that poster that Also Sprach Zarathustra by Richard Strauss is a serial composition in the section leading up to the conclusion of the 1st half of the piece.