I am curious as to why many composers these days are so hung up on the word ‘original’ when it comes to creating something. First let me say that ‘original’ means something that is new. A work of art that is
an ‘original creation’ of the artist. Some people interpret this as meaning that it must somehow be different from anything before in areas such as form or style. This is nonsense. If they want the work to be
different than anything before in terms of one or more elements they need to have heard and or analysed everything before (or being worked on concurrently) or in any caseconsider that innovation is
particularly important to them. My theory is that not only have many composers misinterpreted the word ‘original’ but also have been indoctrinated by anti-traditional ideas that swept Europe in the 1950s. Not
least in the writings of Boulez. Eventhough it is 50 years ago it has become common in Universities and other institutions to approach music this way. It must be unique. Even a single piece must be unique. The
other side to my theory is that I some people think that personal style is the same as innovation. This is a weird mismatch. They are so busy looking for a voice, a style they can defend intellectually in same
institutions that their personal taste gets squashed. That is a sad situation indeed.
I can list you 50 composers that were not innovative. Yes, they are recognizable, but not because they tried something not done before. For example let’s compare Schumann and Brahms (but there are many
other examples). Brahms was a better orchestrator and favoured inversion chords. The former is a learned skill, nothing to do with innovation and the second is personal style, again nothing to do with
innovation. These kinds of chords go back to the Baroque, it’s just that Brahms liked them! Consider two of the greatest composers in history. Mozart churned out music that was far from innovative. Actually
Haydn was more experimental as regards form, it’s just that Mozart had such an extraordinary facility with melody (this is personal style, a gift he was born with, not an innovation from intense analysis of other
music) and then look at Bach. He churned out even more music, a lot of which is just an amalgamation of the North German Organ school, Italian concerto and French Overture. Of course, there were other
influences too but that is what they were, influences not groundbreaking work.
Also some of the innovative composers, the so-called revolutionaries were often more interested in music of the past. Beethoven is full of Haydn and Mozart and even Bach. It is interesting that Beethoven’s
most mature work, his late quartets, sonatas and the Ninth Symphony have such an interest in counterpoint and variation form – music of the past. Listening to it reveals a thorough understanding of Baroque
music. Brahms also did this 50 years later, by the way. In Rennaissance and pre-rennaissance music the idea of the composer as this egomaniac who had to have firm ideas that were different to others was
virtually non-existant. Music was passed around, re-arranged and this can be found in Stravinsky’s Pulcinella, which is merely an arrangement yet done in a Stravinskian way. Let’s consider that for a moment.
The style of Stravinsky is personal not innovative. Bartok was also personal, he was Hungarian influenced. He was not the only one writing dissonant music, of course and not the only Hungarian. consider
Kodaly. These are the ones we remember too! There must have been thousands of early modern/neo-classical composers. If they are not remembered it is for a whole number of factors, as you can well
imagine. The desire to be a great composer through being innovative is also nonsense. If it were that simple I could write a piece called ‘5 hours of silence ending with a barking dog’. That would not make me a
great artist. On the other hand, there is nothing to say this is not art. If the visual arts have taught us anything, is that yes, this too is art. Does the fact that the Viennese School dissolved diatonic harmony mean
that tonality is no longer relevant? I think few would agree with that at the begining of the Twenty First Century. If anything there has been a huge backlash against total-chromaticism both during their time and
since. Harmony is only one element in any case. Debussy took a totally different approach to dissolving harmony.
I would like to mention Arvo Part here, who is often criticized for being unoriginal. Firstly it is the wrong word, as I have already addressed. The word is innovative. So he was not innovative, just like all the composers he admires – pergolesi, palestrina, victoria etc. He is also composing essentially Church music which is a different genre to contemporary secular music! Different animal all together. It needs to function as well as suit the Church. He did write instrumental music heavily endowed with the same religious spirit. The point is that he is instantly recognizable. Like him or loathe him, he is consistent and rights very well for voice. So where is the problem with that? The fact he sells records? All contemporary composers almost without exception would want to be heard by more people so it is likely jealousy. Ou maybe some zealots have such a narrow idea of art that they think that he is betraying all the hard work they do trying to be elitist, driving forward with perceived innovations which they consider to a lofty egomaniacal enterprise.
So, my advice to younger composers is this: listen to as much as possible, if you like something then learn more about it and start to compose. If it sounds exactly like a previous composer, which is harder to
do than you might think, don’t worry because unless you are a machine with no intuition or imagination, your music will evolve and your style will emerge.
I am curious as to why many composers these days are so hung up on the word ‘original’ when it comes to creating something. First let me say that ‘original’ means something that is new. A work of art that is
an ‘original creation’ of the artist. Some people interpret this as meaning that it must somehow be different from anything before in areas such as form or style. This is nonsense. If they want the work to be different than anything before in terms of one or more elements they need to have heard and or analysed everything before (or being worked on concurrently) or in any case, consider to place innovation ahead of any other single element in the creation of their work, which is absurd! Not only have many composers misinterpreted the word ‘original’ but also have been indoctrinated by anti-traditional ideas that swept Europe in the 1950s, not least in the writings of Boulez. Eventhough it is 50 years ago it has become common in Universities and other institutions to approach music this way, that it must be unique (and readily analyzable and ideally belong to a current trend).
Another sad fact is that some people think that personal style is the same as innovation. This is a weird mismatch. They are so busy looking for a voice, a style they can defend intellectually in same institutions that their personal taste gets squashed. That is a sad situation indeed. Personal style has nothing to do with innovation at all. Pick up a music history book, you see 90 percent personal taste and 10 percent accepted innovation.
I can list you 50 composers, just off the top of my head, that were not innovative. Yes, they are recognizable, but not because they tried something not done before. For example let’s compare Schumann and Brahms (but there are many other examples). Brahms was a better orchestrator and favoured inversion chords. The former is a learned skill, nothing to do with innovation and the second is personal style, again nothing to do with innovation. These kinds of chords go back to the Baroque, it’s just that Brahms liked them! It was not some great intellectual argument he was proposing. You might be thinking, hey, you are talking about music from the 19th Century. That was a completely different time in music. Well, so was 500 years ago but clearly the music we write is belong to this Western Art Music tradition. It is therefore all relevant. Unless, you don’t consider yourself belong to the the development of Western Art music, in which case, none of this applies to you.
Consider two of the greatest composers in history, Bach and Mozart. Mozart churned out music that was far from innovative. Actually Haydn was more experimental as regards form, it’s just that Mozart had such an extraordinary facility with melody (this is personal style, a gift he was born with, not an innovation from intense analysis of other music) and then look at Bach. He churned out even more music, a lot of which is just an amalgamation of the North German Organ school, Italian concerto and French Overture. Of course, there were other influences too but that is what they were, influences not groundbreaking work. Bach was a genius but that has nothing to do with him sitting down and working out a music that had never been done before and that this would validate his work.
Also some of the innovative composers, the so-called revolutionaries were often more interested in music of the past. Beethoven is full of Haydn and Mozart and even Bach. It is interesting that Beethoven’s most mature work, his late quartets, sonatas and the Ninth Symphony have such an interest in counterpoint and variation form – music of the past. Listening to it reveals a thorough understanding of Baroque music. You are also crazy if you think Beethoven thought ‘ I am going to be really innovatice by writing a fully fledged fugue with much dissonce as the finale to my String Quartet in Bflat.’ It is just how he felt! It is also, very clearly, a Beethoven thing to do! Again… personal style.
Brahms by the way also studied Bach in great detail 50 years later as did Mahler and Schnittke. You can hear the Bach in the music too. But are these composers critcised for that? No. Oddly they are praised for it.
In Renaissance and pre-Renaissance music the idea of the composer as this egomaniac who had to have firm ideas that were different to others was virtually non-existant. Music was passed around, re-arranged and the author was quite secondary. This can be found in Stravinsky’s Pulcinella, which is merely an arrangement yet done in a Stravinskian way.
The desire to be a great composer through being innovative is also nonsense. If it were that simple I could write a piece called ‘5 hours of silence ending with a barking dog’. That would not make me a great artist. On the other hand, there is nothing to say this is not art. If the visual arts have taught us anything, is that yes, this too is art.
Does the fact that theViennese School dissolved diatonic harmony mean that tonality is no longer relevant? Is it Arnold’s fault for that rubbish he said about serialism securing the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years? Was he one of the first who put innovation above quality? It is unfair to say this. I think that Schoenberg’s early music proves he was a composer of the highest ‘quality’. Harmony is only one element in any case. Debussy took a totally different approach to dissolving harmony too. He is also analysed to death! He must be gutted in his grave! Debussy’s intention was clearly to evoke images or scenes through a music that sounded improvisatory. We know he worked it all out meticulously! It is in every text book. So, as composers we are doomed to have lost the whole point of Debussy by now hearing it exactly not as the composer wanted. The only listeners who get Debussy must be people who have never looked at his scores. Who was he composing music for, anyway, you might ask. I guess for those interested in listening to new music. That is a fair statement. Listening, ok? not analysing scores. People listen to music.
I would like to mention Arvo Part here, who is often criticized for being unoriginal. Firstly it is the wrong word, as I have already addressed. The word is innovative. So he wasn’t a great innovator, just like all the composers he admires – Pergolesi, Palestrina, Victoria etc. He is also composing essentially Church music which is a different genre to contemporary secular music! Different animal all together. It needs to function as well as suit the Church. He did write instrumental music heavily endowed with the same religious spirit. The point is that he is instantly recognizable. Like him or loathe him, he is consistent and writes very well for voice. So where is the problem with that? The fact he sells records? All contemporary composers almost without exception would want to be heard by more people so it is likely jealousy. Or maybe some zealots have such a narrow idea of art that they think that he is betraying all the hard work they do trying to be elitist, driving forward with perceived innovations which they consider to be a lofty crusade.
So, to end, only have scrached the surface, my advice to younger composers is this: listen to as much as possible, if you like something then find out more about it and start to compose. If it sounds exactly like a previous composer, which is harder to do than you might think! Don’t worry, because unless you are a machine with no intuition or imagination, your music will evolve and your style will emerge.
Adrian said,
June 2, 2009 at 11:35
I agree. Style is what counts. There has been enough innovation in the 20th century to last us a life-time! As contemporary composers of any age, we still have to produce music that means something to us. The basic building blocks of any music have remained constant throughout the ages and across cultures; the only difference is that composers have given different elements greater or lesser degrees of attention. A better way of looking at the music history and style and innovation is really that each individual, irrespective of time/place, has taken a different perspective or approach – thus, creating their own style. Sometimes this style might include new ideas, and most of the time, not.
From my own point of view, I don’t see anything in my music and method that is different from any other composer, broadly speaking. I do see a trend, however, with the development of music and human evolution. I think as time progressed, we have made less use of intuition and relied more on reasoning (the increasing social influences of maths, science, technology, information, etc.); while there has also been a concurrent revolt against this with, for example, Dada, abstract expressionism, etc.
Either way, if you sit down to write, I think you need to forget about originality (in a totally new sense), and concentrate on creating something that is unique to you; your voice; your understanding and use of music; your expression and response to the world around you. Undoubtedly, and unless you’re a stone-cold ‘musiopath’, the resultant music will reflect something of the musical world we live in right now and the one that we’ve heard through history…
jami77 said,
June 2, 2009 at 11:51
Yes, it is impossible to compose in a vacuum and block out everything you have heard before. It is impossible to know if you are being completely ‘original’, unless you do something completely radical, even so… assuming such innovation actually has any intrinsic value.
A history of music based on individuals is a lot more meaningful and accurate, totally agree there.