Creativity. Art to reamin in time. Why?

[Ghormak]

To each their own, but to me music is indeed just music, as you put it.

Which is why classical music still rocks and always will, for me. 90% of it is non-secular music, and the rest just have titles like "A song in D minor". If someone is unable to enjoy the music because of that, I pity them.

[Esseb]

If you write something that could be written 200 years ago, why would anyone listen to your music and not music written 200 years ago.

What are you doing on a forum where people make games in a genre that died 10 years ago?

[EldKatt]

I'm not sure that historically [Bach] was regarded as old-fashioned in his lifetime.

I can't provide any references, but everything I've read indicates that he was, in the later years. It doesn't matter, here, that he took counterpoint and strict contrapuntal forms further than anyone else, since counterpoint and strict contrapuntal forms themselves were old (the new style represented in part by his sons).

I agree with you that Bach took both counterpoint and things like chromaticism further than anyone. But my original post assumed that there's a difference between doing something better than anyone before you and doing something in a completely new way. Bach didn't revolutionize anything. His music follows very much in the footsteps of his predecessors--because yes, he had predecessors, and they weren't bad either. It's only recently that people have begun to realize that there was music before Bach. Don't get me wrong here--I do think Bach was brilliant, superior to pretty much anyone in many respects. But I still stand by the rhetorical question made in my previous post: What did Bach ever do that hadn't already been done? He simply did the same old thing, albeit better than anyone else.



And now for a completely different subject.

1. All classical music is dying, as it is old-fashioned. Did you know that classical music is mostly used in old-time films, and not modern. There is no way you can listen a classical tune in a spacecraft (apart Cubric maybe), or in a high speed chase over NY. That's a generalisation it does not apply to everything. But it does happen.
2. All classical music is dying. If you go to any contemporary music concert the only audience are classical music students. And that's a fact!

What do you mean by "classical music" here? If you're talking about contemporary music alone, as your second point seems to indicate (although I can't seem to make sense of your first point using that definition) you may have a point. If you mean it in a broader sense, though, then I very much disagree with you. A lot of people who aren't music students listen to classical music and attend concerts. Film soundtracks, stylistically, are largely a continuation of the "classical music" tradition (in the broad, confusing sense), even if they can be somewhat boring if regarded as absolute music. Classical music in this sense is not dying.

Before I argue any further, though, please tell me how you define classical music here. It's quite a confusing and ambiguous term.

[Nikolas]

Esseb: I'm doing what I've been doing for all my life. I follow my heart... I mean I still write classical music and will keep on doing it.

Now Eldkatt: You're right about my two points. Classical music can have such a many differnt definitions.
First of all I'm not talking abou the classical era (Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven). I'm rather reffering to what Zappa called "serious" music, probably in a sarcastic way (though he did have great knowledge of contemporary theories and stuff...)
In both my points I mean music that could exist 50-100 years ago or earlier. Do keep in mind that most film music (not all), have taken most of their tricks from Prokofiev and Stravinsky orchestration wise. Who both were alive in 1910 (Rite of Spring first performed in 1913 I think). So in my first point any music that could have been written 100 years ago, sounds indeed old fashioned (and actually not to me, but to the directors).On the contrary a hip-hop song (or anything to that direction), can only exist for 10 years (or even less depending on the production and easthetique). That's what I mean by my first point.

On my second point again I mean all music that is being played in concerts here in London. I'm not talking about the Proms (which are really cheap, and have never been so I can't talk about that), but all other venues that play contemporary (or not so contemporary) music are empty or filled with music students. Even at my college, Royal Holloway, they have concerts almost every week. And almost every week the picture gallery (the place we do the concerts) are empty. Not even the music students go. But a concert about music in Nepal, was kicking and people were waiting outside the gallery just to take a glimpse.

I can find two explanation for what's happening. First of all contemporary music (mainly), is so strict easthetically as well as so difficult to comprehend that only the experts (people who study music), can understand it and enjoy. And sometimes not even them. Even though I'm studying music all my life and I'm doing PhD now, I can't claim that I enjoy contemporary music a lot. I actually think that most of it is rubbish (another generalisation...)

The other reason is the heavy underadvertising that takes place in music. You have to be Sherlock Holmes in order to find out about a concert. Of course SPNM (Society for the Promoting of New Music), has a monthly magazine which lists a lot (or even all), the happenings in London, but it has (I think), around 3,000 subscribers most of which are composers and musicians.

Of course one can enjoy classical music in his/her home (and classical music ranging from medieval motets to music by Stockhousen or Boulez). But it seems that there are so many things going on everywhere and noone gives a damn.

And I think that the same thing applies to all other arts. It's just that I can talk about music, but probably it's the same thing everywhere, no?

Now that I tried to define classical music, you can go on. And really excuse me as it was really confusing the way I used it...

[Pessi]

I think people create for different reasons, and I believe some reasons are better and some worse.

Some people create music to try to get money off it. Some make different music just to make different music. Maybe someone makes it out of habit. I don't have respect for any of those.

When you make music to absolutely express yourself, that is where it's at. Not for the money, not even secretly. Not to save the piece to have it to show around so you can feel good about yourself. Not the kind of music your used to writing or playing, the kind that just comes out because of the way you feel. Not feeling like, oh, this kind of thing does not fit the genre. Just playing what sounds the most beautiful to you then so you can cry or laugh with it. Then just go on with your life.

Just create, don't give a damn about anything else. I think that is what makes a difference between a guy who starts working on a piece like, "I need an idea. OK, now I'll just use all my tricks to make it sound great." (maybe even wondering what the audience likes to hear) and a guy who just tries to express himself in the absolute best way. Trying to deal with all the emotions he wants to address.

Someone said earlier, "creating music for the sake of music". I don't see that as a great thing. As I don't see growling/shouting as a good thing either, if you don't feel like shouting. Like in metal music, for most, it's probably just a part of style.

I actually find this a very good subject. But it is a very personal one, so in a way I don't like talking about it all that much because you are in a position to hurt and get hurt.

All in all, I think the only thing you'll ever have to do with art is to be honest.

[Nikolas]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts then and I hope that noone is going to get hurt here...

Am I cleverer than the rest?
Am I more beautifull?
Have I a better voice?
Am I more talented?
Have I written (poetry) something better than the rest?
Am I better?

In all these questions the answer is no, i (<-) am not! And since I don't feel this way I don't think that I'll ever get my self out. What I write in whatever form, I want the community (any community) to listen, to know. And myself is none of anyones' buisness. And although it does contradict a bit something like "My newborn son", I find that my newborn son is not a piece of art, and sharing these news is an obligation for my love and for my son and for my family and for you all.

Anyway I think (it is personal as Pessi says), that art has to do with sharing and a personal feeling or ones' self is difficult to share. But a great feeling or a great message can be shared and maybe it does make a differnce.

PS. I think that I sound a little harsh and pissed and very decided here. I'm not at all and excuse my manners please once more...

[Nikolas]

This is a new post as it is a differnet matter, but on-topic.

I was just watching a documentary about ballet and the teaching methods. It seems that in the Uk it is illegal to touch your students, whatever you are teaching them. Correct me here if I'm wrong. But if this is the case, while I was learning the piano I had a lot of touching and feeling my hands, without any fear that I was secually exploited or anything. And I can begin to understand how I would be able to teach piano without touching the kids/adults hands. It seems imposible..

Now thinking on that it got me thinking on what the society needs. I mean of course you create for yourself (mainly), and not on professional bases (<- a little interuption here. I've met a violinst who had to do a concert. Two minutes before the concert was about to begin he recived a telegraph from his mothers' doctor. He insisted on reading it, claiming that he wouldn't be able to rrelax and play properly if he didn't know what was in the telegraph. He read the telegraph and went on playing the best performance of his life. The moment he steped out of the stage he broke into tears as his mother had died. And he knew this all along the concert. This is something I admire immensly! This is professionalism at the utter respect! Maybe too much. But this is dedication to music and love to music and audience.) On a professionaly bases you will be asked to do whatever your boss requeirs (sp) and that takes guts. I mean it's one thing to write music in generall. But it's another to write a carol then a horror film music, then a concerto for piano and so on.

And composers (and all artist) of the past, had to go through this. Bach and Mozart wrote most of their masterpieces while working for the King 

This does not happen anymore. Human rights hand in hand with any kind of political correctness and any kind of rights have made us soft and indiffernet in what we want to achieve and generally what we want. What I'm trying to say is that the only way to avoid any danger is to stay at home and not do nothing. If someone takes a look at any txt in this post, I bet he/she (<- look at the) can find a flaw. The bible, I once read, had to be rewriten in order to be political correct And the worst thing is that this is legally correct! There's no escape!

So how can an artist say what he believes (I'm aiming at me that's why I use "he") without being in danger of being misunderstood or misinterpreted.

And this I believe goes for all arts. This is not about music alone. It's about all arts. Open up people

And excuse me if this is boring, or pushing. really...

PS. I am confident but also try not to be pushy (as far as I can). This is the last time I bump this thread. If there is no response I'll drop it. And please don't post for the shake of it...( <-Does this make any sense...)

I'm mumbling a lot but this is a thread that I sincerly love! That's why. And your response have been much inspiring...