Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

The question has come up many times here as to what is music.

Isn't that questioned answered by what you compose?

Isn't what you write a reflection of what you believe music is

and/or should be. Or are you merely imitating the efforts and

precedents established by others. This is not to suggest that

imitation and following an established form is a bad thing.

Compared to the number of composers, revolutionary innovators

are few and far between from an historical perspective.

Regardless, there are certain elements of sound and sounds that

seem to separate music from 'noise', and acceptance can be

both individual and regional.

Is there any one common characteristic, across the globe, that

qualifies and separates music from noise?

Views: 8327

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Prisstofer, you are right, and I have never yet claimed to be a composer.

I have, many times, said that I am a hobbyist, who likes to write music ocassionally.

It is both fun and rewarding. That is why I do it. It is simply a creative outlet that I enjoy.

Whether I qualify, by your arrogant standard, as a legitimate composer, really is... next

to worthless to me. ( you Bach wanna be)

My guess is that it IS an 'effort' for you to be kind and courteous.

If you were, you would ignore this thread and look for one that met your

standards and intellect. But still, you are here challenging 'persons'.

It would be a courteous gesture on your part to simply move on to another

thread and give those of us who think there is something worth discussing

the opportunity to carry on. You seem to have a BIG problem with that.

And... you are not the only one.

Hey, I hear there are a lot of anti Trump agitators in a town near you,

and they need more rock throwers. Guess what, you qualify.

Strictly speaking... when you create an account to join this board, there are those lengthy question you need to answer in order to verify that you aren't a sham, and one of those goes: "Are you yourself a composer (professional or amateur?)". You have, in fact, answered "yes" to this one.



roger stancill said:

Prisstofer, you are right, and I have never yet claimed to be a composer.

Moving right along- despite the pages and pages of static and 'noise'...

Is it reasonable to say that music is a language unto itself?

Is it reasonable to say that music is a 'higher' language than words?

When you write or 'compose', aren't you attempting to

communicate something? Or, are you simply mimicing current trends

of accepted 'music' to make a buck?   RS

Fred, excellent point.   Would you agree that no matter what the practiced language

of a 'regional' area is, that the language of music can still be understood and appreciated

by those people, regardless of the spoken language of that region?

Therefore making it a more universal medium of communication?

yawn

Dave "NO STANDARDS" Dexter said:

"I honestly don't care a rat's ass about syntax or grammatical perfection."

Yes, that's quite obvious.

"I for one would like to hear from someone with a brain that is not dominated by his tender ego and a need to trash a discussion."

Well, you in the past trashed one of my discussions to the extent I simply closed it, and your ego is so tender that calling you out on ridiculous claims makes you very angry, so . . . cloning? Can we do cloning yet? Is that a thing?

Hey Greg, I originally joined because I enjoyed writing music and I wanted to improve

on what I was doing. I was looking for constructive feedback from like minded people.

If I thought that I was an accomplished composer, well, I probbably in all honesty, wouldn't

be here. This site has great potential, but it is 'overshadowed'.       RS
 
Greg Brus said:

Strictly speaking... when you create an account to join this board, there are those lengthy question you need to answer in order to verify that you aren't a sham, and one of those goes: "Are you yourself a composer (professional or amateur?)". You have, in fact, answered "yes" to this one.



roger stancill said:

Prisstofer, you are right, and I have never yet claimed to be a composer.

Greg, please qualify amateur composer.

Greg Brus said:

Strictly speaking... when you create an account to join this board, there are those lengthy question you need to answer in order to verify that you aren't a sham, and one of those goes: "Are you yourself a composer (professional or amateur?)". You have, in fact, answered "yes" to this one.



roger stancill said:

Prisstofer, you are right, and I have never yet claimed to be a composer.

I define music as not having to be based around the tonic. Just finished a piece. Didn't base chord progressions/colour around the tonic. Didn't end or start phrases on the tonic. Didn't use tonic theory for the key change.

But I am sure that I am drunk with the iconoclastic sin and tonic. 

 

That is true, Sibelius is just a tool, and yes I did say artificial intelligence is a tool also.
 
Artificial intelligence is defined by some as programming a computer to make decisions that would normally require human intelligence. It is already being used in many software applications like Sibelius, which can for example auto-fill measures with rests when you enter a note shorter than the full value of a measure. It does that without prompting, it makes an intelligent decision to take action on its own to help you do your work.


I posted an extreme example of AI in a video showing a program that can create complete original works in the style of famous composers. It only does this after a user specifies certain parameters controlling the output and then "pushes a button".


You are right that this is a quantum leap ahead of basic AI programming, but it is the same principle. I agree with the many people who see these extreme examples as not only aesthetically undesireable but also potentially threatening.
I think AI at an extreme level could be used creatively instead of dishonestly, as in the example of stealing the style of a known artist. It doesn't have to replace composers either. It's all about programming and being in control, which I think would make it a tool for use by a composer.  You could for example tell the computer to create a hybrid style (fusion?) of two existing styles or composers who approve the project, or you could alter a known style, maybe baroque music with 13th chords?  Yes this could be done manually and is not too exciting but it's just an example. I'm sure that composers like us will come up with much better applications.


Thanks for letting me ramble.

Dave "NO STANDARDS" Dexter said:

That's a little different. Sibelius is just an updated method and medium for transcribing and writing. It's like wax tablets vs magnetic tape, the fundamental artistry has not changed. AI (not that I think it will happen) carries the threat of actually outdoing composers as opposed to being a more streamlined avenue for their work.

Ingo Lee said:

I'm sure many of us can remember writing music without Sibelius, but I wouldn't want to go back to that, so I'm ready to try something new.

"Tonic dominant theory is not necessary for music."

 

Yes, that's true.

 

"All I'm saying is that there is possibly an inbuilt affinity for it just [as] there is an inbuilt affinity for keeping one[ ' ]s balance because of the way gravity functions."

 

I think we went over this before.  The analogy with gravity does not work.  Why?  Because gravity is a physical law of the universe.  Any musical theory is a purely human invention. It's a cultural construct. If that were not the case, then we could not have so many different tunings.  We would not see so many scales, modes and contemporary systems of tonality, all of which are equally "valid." All the systems that we know appear to work.  If they didn't work, we would see the "notes" falling off the page, due to the force of a supposed "gravity."  And, as "anti-gravitational" compositions were being performed, we might also see the players helplessly collapsing to the ground before they even got to the second bar. 

As it is, in spite of "musical gravity," the notes seem able to move upwards and sideways.  Also, musicians seem somehow able to remain in their chairs, even when they perform Stockhausen.  (I've never seen one fall over}.

 

"That said, IMHO some of the most powerful music ever written doesn't require  tonality."

 

But physical science DOES require gravity.   The fact that powerful music does not require (traditional) tonality seems to indicate that the analogy does break down.  Of course, some kind of tonality is needed, whether it is traditional diatonicism, dodecaphony, polytonality, microtonality, a foreign tonality, or set of modes generally alien to the Western ear.

 

"Music is the organized absence of silence" 

 

I wondered if we could rewrite this as, "Music is the absence of unorganized silence."  Or perhaps this could merely be a corollary of the first statement.  And we might also add, "Music is the absence of the heart growing less fonder."  [The last formulation, or some variation of it, may be necessary, for the sake of including some aspect of emotion in the definition]. 

Thanks for noticing that Dave. Yep, you could even say

that I am 'well composed'.  hahahahaha  snort snort

Aw. What a nice, balanced man not driven by ego or anger. 

Fred, you have probably seen this already, but for those who

haven't (and have the time) it is worth watching IMO     RS

L. Bernstein  at Harvard    1973

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fHi36dvTdE&list=PLKiz0UZowP2V0...

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sign up info

Read before you sign up to find out what the requirements are!

Store

© 2021   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service