I feel we need to split the contest thread up now. There have been similar threads in the past, but have not asked a more broad and (at the same time) one specific question. A few are trying to think of their ideas and philosophies as exact ones that cannot be disproved and are strong, full-fledged Forms, but in reality are weak opinions.

We all need to hear YOUR ideas on what Composers are. What makes a great composer? How? You cannot simply prove your visions and feelings by saying greatness is changing a form or expressing himself even if it means breaking theory. This tells what he does, vaguely, but it definitely doesn't tell (or better) SHOW us how. If it does, tell me in that sentence [for what it is] how it tells how.

Why do we need this? Because knowledge is fun, but intelligence connects it all together. There is no arguing in this thread, only mature commentary, opinion-throwing and calling people out. Arguing is immature as it involves nothing but pointless dismissal of someone's idea because it's different. Why and how is the key here.

Somebody had written this,


"True; perhaps we should attempt to get closer to the core of what makes a great composer. I propose that the greatest composers have the ability to use music and the simplicity/complexity therein as a means to express themselves successfully, and go beyond the theory of music to create something new and exciting for themselves, the performers, and the audience.

I think that this core element of composing is something which many composers (such as Mark Northam, from what I can tell) forget, or are forced to neglect (probably partially by the ignorance of modern society and, more specifically, movie directors towards the true essence of music). For this reason, they will never be as successful as the great composers who have been able to achieve this manner of expression (such as John Williams). For this reason, I feel that the soundtracks of today are much less effective than those of the past, with few exceptions.

Based off of my definition [which is obviously only my opinion, but which I am fairly certain Noir7 would agree with considering the conditions of his last contest], exact parameters for orchestration, instrumentation, form, and other similar concrete requirements are irrelevant to the greatness of a "composer" (although if this was a contest to find the best "orchestrator", that would be a different story). Therefore, I propose that we use parameters which are a little more abstract, such as composing to fit a given theme, emotion, or poem, so that every composer, no matter what their compositional strengths, will have an equal chance to excel."

My thinking to this?

What is the essence of the Composer? What is the essence of music? How have people gone past the theory to create something new and exciting? Who are these great composers? John Williams; how does he match up as an example? How do you "fit" emotions in the piece? (Aren't emotions different to different people?) How can you dismiss orchestration, instrumentation, form as irrelevant to a greatness of a composer? These are all things that have moved us on, so they attribute to the "greatness" right? If someone truly puts emotion in his music, then aren't scratches of random notes done out of anger considered great music?

This is all a great ideal and all, but there are so many conclusions that are truly left open (just as the ones I mentioned now). I'd like to hear a response to some of these and then I'll accept what you have to say is valid is some way.

P.S. Don't take this as a slam, because I am only a critic in reality; however, this does not mean that anything you put out there is going to be thought of as entirely perfect. I think it'd help you and others to learn from what you really did say. =D

---

GO

As to explaining how a great composer does what he does: I think you're asking the impossible. Personally, I think that's the magic of composing; each composer develops their talents to be able to do so in a unique way. That will involve exploring orchestration, form, and studying past composers, but ultimately the composer must find his/her unique voice.

As to emotions and music: I believe that human emotion is basically universal experience, and that music is a medium with which to express an idea which couldn't be fully subjected to traditional language. Putting emotion into music doesn't simply mean that you have an emotion that you're trying to convey when you write the music (I learned this the hard way when I started composing), but rather that you are able to use your creative voice to express these emotions to an audience. It is true that because of the differences in people that some people may not relate to a piece as well as others right off the bat; however, I think that over time one can come to understand a piece better so that they understand the emotion behind it. Do you disagree that music conveys emotion (obviously there are those who do)?

Hopefully, someone else will come by and simplify/clarify what I've been trying to say.

A great composer is one who writes excellent music that affects us deeply in some way, someone we respect due to his/her impressive achievements, whose music serves as inspiration to other composers.

As to explaining how a great composer does what he does: I think you're asking the impossible. Personally, I think that's the magic of composing; each composer develops their talents to be able to do so in a unique way. That will involve exploring orchestration, form, and studying past composers, but ultimately the composer must find his/her unique voice.

As to emotions and music: I believe that human emotion is basically universal experience, and that music is a medium with which to express an idea which couldn't be fully subjected to traditional language. Putting emotion into music doesn't simply mean that you have an emotion that you're trying to convey when you write the music (I learned this the hard way when I started composing), but rather that you are able to use your creative voice to express these emotions to an audience. It is true that because of the differences in people that some people may not relate to a piece as well as others right off the bat; however, I think that over time one can come to understand a piece better so that they understand the emotion behind it. Do you disagree that music conveys emotion (obviously there are those who do)?

Hopefully, someone else will come by and simplify/clarify what I've been trying to say.

I don't feel I am asking the impossible; read your second paragraph. For the record, I am very proud that you did write on after saying I am asking the impossible. It may seem as it cannot be truly explained, but people have been putting forth ideas about life, love, mathematics, biology, religion and even music and have analyzed it emotionally, scientifically, physiologically and as a philosophy. And with these ideas, they didn't only put them forth but they tried to prove them as well (that lovely analyzing part I mentioned). This involved much research and trying to think of everything and anything of what they meant. I've broken out my dictionary to things a few times in the past several months. For example, I was questioning the "Beauty of Music" or how "Music is Beautiful." So, I just simply was at my library and looked at good ol' Webster's College Dictionary and found a few definitions to prove that statement. I didn't get to the roots of WHY it's beautiful, but it was good enough for me.


Beauty is a characteristic of a person, animal, place, object, or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure, meaning, or satisfaction. Beauty is studied as part of aesthetics, sociology, social psychology, and culture. As a cultural creation, beauty has been extremely commercialized. An "ideal beauty" is an entity which is admired, or possesses features widely attributed to beauty in a particular culture.

The experience of "beauty" often involves the interpretation of some entity as being in balance and harmony with nature, which may lead to feelings of attraction and emotional well-being. Because this is a subjective experience, it is often said that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."[1] In its most profound sense, beauty may engender a salient experience of positive reflection about the meaning of one's own existence. A subject of beauty is anything that resonates with personal meaning.


I am sure you have heard of The Forms of Plato with the problem/solution of universals? This gets me on my next thought in the true meaning of beauty as it relates to music. The first definition (separated by the sentences in the quote) is obvious of music. However I do not know why it strikes the universal with this pleasure, satisfaction and meaning. Furthermore, how would it strike a single-subject? I guess this is where the "perceptual" aspect of the definition and even the "eye of the beholder" later stated. This gets me back to your word, deathraider, that music holds the key to human's experience and have a universal emotion (paraphrase). However as true as that may seem, I see that there could be people forgotten in that. After all, none of us here have all experienced the same things. People who have not experienced a death or have had points of lengthy depression cannot relate to people that have. And I can speak for myself when I came to understand and relate to love songs, and now unfortunately, break-up songs too. I thought they were all silly and just run-of-the-mill, but when you experience such a love and how deep that is, it's something that cannot be explained, and same with when that love has to change for the better [direction].

However, luckily, you went on to explain what I just went into a deeper thought. Not only that, you also explained the listener may not understand right away due to his lack of experience, but come to know it when the time comes. I am not entirely sure of this, because I've had direct examples of me loving a piece and someone else feeling the piece in an entirely different direction where when we talk about it, it's like an argument from a born-again Christian and an Atheist. The person just didn't give up that that's what they felt for the piece, however, we did reach a common ground on acceptance; although the emotion wasn't conveyed to each other, our individual feeling was transcended to us and we understood the idea that we came to the same understanding of the piece. This is where beauty starts to get a little twisty for me, because it's supposed to be experience of pleasure, satisfaction and meaning. Maybe it's pleasure, satisfaction or meaning? I will stick with the latter.

Basically, true beauty is only something that one person could fully relate to. This is explained in the definition of beauty with the quote, "In its most profound sense, beauty may engender a salient experience of positive reflection about the meaning of one's own existence. A subject of beauty is anything that resonates with personal meaning." Notice I bolded the word "profound." That word comes from the word "found." To found something is to create it and build it (paraphrase). Therefore, if beauty is in it's "most profound sense" then music can only be truly beautiful to each person on their own, and that people are able to, in some ways, relate to each other with experiences. Then wait, paradox, these experiences translate into beauty, which affects our emotions.

Then maybe there is a universal meaning of beauty in music. Although, I only said we could in some ways. When universals are brought into the picture, it's only something that we have in common (this is when we get into taxonomy!). Everyone here on Ichigo's can belong to a universal category. We're all humans and we are all members of Ichigo's. That's what we ALL have in common, yes? But now here's the zinger, that's only TWO things that we have in common as an entire people. Then comes to people who have in common the family of general discussion, music, art, etc. Some people do only one of those things, yet some like to e active in everything. This is when it branches and it becomes more complicated, so I won't go there for the sake of the topic we're actually on. What I am trying to paint here is that we cannot truly relate in a language of music to connect everything, because an experience is never 100% 'relateable.' People probably get the same emotion out of the first movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony, but that's just one single emotion, and we may have others that won't relate to that "universal emotion."

I am going to stop, because if I am to go on and make some improvement, there is time needed to reflect. I have not come to a certain conclusion, but have simply opened more doors. I kind of feel like an old philosopher who will never have the answer but will try hard and ultimately pose more questions. See how everything branches? Ah.. another theory is maybe everything branches out only to come back into one as the solution, but that's like trying to understand "forever."

Take what you may from this. Oh, and by the way, I like your definition Al. :D

Once again, I will try to ignore your condescending tone in the first paragraph...

I think that what you said is very true. I'm glad you understood what I was was trying to express and were able to expand upon it. However, I'm not sure how these things directly relate to what makes a great composer...

A couple of quotes I would like to introduce to the fray:

“I like to think of music as an emotional science.” ~George Gershwin

“Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend.” ~Ludwig Van Beethoven

Teehee, I'm going to revive for a bit:

First of all, I have be a skeptic and say that from any sides your argue from, you might potential be wrong or right. So in a sense, Deathraider isn't entirely wrong about this entire matter being 'impossible'. On the other hand, we also cannot tell whether if it's impossible because we are only mere humans.

You're probably saying my argument doesn't say much. But if you think of it on a deeper level: who is it to say/define music? Why do we even care anyways? Why are we putting an extra complication on ourselves to 'impose' a definition of music toward others?

Ultimately, for me, I like to be doubtful of those people who have monistic views/single-minded views on music. Furthermore, if they like to define music that way, well, so be it. No one knows if they're wrong or right. However, how I personally define music, that's up to me and I keep it to myself. After all, music is all about the final performance, most audience don't give a damn about the composer's struggle/process/thoughts/anything before that.

Now, to prove that I actually read the posts:


I am sure you have heard of The Forms of Plato with the problem/solution of universals? This gets me on my next thought in the true meaning of beauty as it relates to music. The first definition (separated by the sentences in the quote) is obvious of music. However I do not know why it strikes the universal with this pleasure, satisfaction and meaning. Furthermore, how would it strike a single-subject? I guess this is where the "perceptual" aspect of the definition and even the "eye of the beholder" later stated. This gets me back to your word, deathraider, that music holds the key to human's experience and have a universal emotion (paraphrase). However as true as that may seem, I see that there could be people forgotten in that. After all, none of us here have all experienced the same things. People who have not experienced a death or have had points of lengthy depression cannot relate to people that have. And I can speak for myself when I came to understand and relate to love songs, and now unfortunately, break-up songs too. I thought they were all silly and just run-of-the-mill, but when you experience such a love and how deep that is, it's something that cannot be explained, and same with when that love has to change for the better [direction].
- Mazeppa



Plato, I hope you know who that is, once placed all arts on the divided line as 'shadows'.

-Me,from a conversation with Mazeppa a while ago

Basically, what Plato was saying is that all art forms are 'illusions of forms', meaning that they have no worth to the world. So in a sense, bringing Plato to this argument isn't quite appropriate.


As to emotions and music: I believe that human emotion is basically universal experience, and that music is a medium with which to express an idea which couldn't be fully subjected to traditional language. Putting emotion into music doesn't simply mean that you have an emotion that you're trying to convey when you write the music (I learned this the hard way when I started composing), but rather that you are able to use your creative voice to express these emotions to an audience. It is true that because of the differences in people that some people may not relate to a piece as well as others right off the bat; however, I think that over time one can come to understand a piece better so that they understand the emotion behind it. Do you disagree that music conveys emotion (obviously there are those who do)?

-Deathraider

There is no doubt music has something to do with emotional appeals; to the audience at least. However, good composers know the formulas to appealing to these emotions and hides these techniques after the performance. And a lot of times, these techniques are rather simple or even lame. But hey, the audience buys it and thus your ego is up-ed a little, who needs to know it's lame? One might find that disillusioning, or just offensive toward the mystical veil about composers. You can go ahead and deny that, nothing is wrong with that. But try dig deeper into your mindset when composing, is it honestly all ooey-gooey emotions or is it a pocketful of tricks that you can feign as emotions?


A great composer is one who writes excellent music that affects us deeply in some way, someone we respect due to his/her impressive achievements, whose music serves as inspiration to other composers.

-Al

Same thing could be said about a terrible composer who writes terrible music; after all, crap music do inspire us to not be like them. C:

~~~

No one is wrong or right in this conversation. But a definite path you don't want this conversation to go is trying to impose a single-minded view on what music is toward others. We all are entitled to opinions, but honestly, for something as abstract/immaterial and personal like this, do we really need to know?

Alright.

*Dies*

Holy pie you revived and with good points.

I personally think all this is just relative and it can't be took as something absolute. Each one will have their personal point of view of what they have been taught, experienced, influenced, blah blah.

Al commented:

"A great composer is one who writes excellent music that affects us deeply in some way".

Here I would say what is "excellent music"? The views would variate from one person to another. And I personally have heard music that I think is "excellent" in my own views, but I don't find it affecting me deeply or even not caring for it much, whiles others feels affected by it.

Touche, Sir. Dot. ;)

The reason for this thread is for the sharing of ideas and what music or a composer is to them. What is beautiful, great, amazing, innovative composer and/or [their] music. I don't intend to find the definition, yet only to toss each others ideas of their "definition." :)

Nyu001: I purposefully chose not to define 'excellent' music for that reason. Also I agree with you, in that excellent music may affect certain people deeply and others not as deeply. That's the whole difficulty of this debate. All I can say is, many people just know excellent music when they hear it, and many musical scholars, when they analyze a piece of work, can explain why it's excellent.

Sir Dot: You're right, both great and terrible composers can inspire us in the right direction!

I don't intend to find the definition, yet only to toss each others ideas of their "definition." :)

Agreed.

Sir_Dotdotdot, I see your ideas have matured a lot since last time we talked. So true that our best ideas for emotional appeal are sometimes the most simple ones.

I think you understood me wrong, Deathraider. My point was that music wasn't always about emotional appeals, or rather, even if it is, it's not always "omgilovemusicbecauseit'ssosoothing" type of thing. I also do not appreciate you using the term 'mature', my understanding and ideas of music require no 'improvements'. It is what it is.

Forgive me, that sounded condescending, but I didn't mean it as such. All I was saying is that your arguments are more coherent now, too me, than before when I had similar discussions with you (although I think your post could do with some proofreading). I really genuinely thought a lot of what you said had interesting value, although I wonder if you take after Stravinsky's philosophy in some ways?

Furthermore, I think it goes without saying that everything we say is our opinion. Let it be known from here on out that I am not trying to impose my opinion on anyone, and I do not want anyone's opinion imposed on me. I am simply putting my ideas out there. I will not feel the need to remind anyone of this in posts on this thread from now on. However, I hope that the idea that music is not definite and that inevitably every person will view it in a slightly different way won't stop us from discussing its implications.

I'd also like to add that to me, music is deeply spiritual, and often religious. Honestly, I try to create new and original music that will touch people (and pray every night that I might be able to do so). However, this is my personal approach to composing, and I'm not saying everyone else should do the same in order to be good at composing, so please don't bash me; this is a highly personal subject to me. However, I felt that this was an important note to add so that one might better understand my point of view.

(although I think your post could do with some proofreading).

As long as you get my point, this is not a literary forum. Nor am I writing an essay for anything/anyone important in particular. ;)


I'd also like to add that to me, music is deeply spiritual, and often religious. Honestly, I try to create new and original music that will touch people (and pray every night that I might be able to do so). However, this is my personal approach to composing, and I'm not saying everyone else should do the same in order to be good at composing, so please don't bash me; this is a highly personal subject to me. However, I felt that this was an important note to add so that one might better understand my point of view.


We all are entitled to opinions, but honestly, for something as abstract/immaterial and personal like this, do we really need to know?

As I have mentioned before, I don't think verbally discussing this matter is too appropriate. Composers write music, not opinion essays. Let the music speak for them. By using words to clarify your intentions in music defeats its purpose and implies that you're imposing a certain mindset for audience to how to listen to your music.

True, although I don't see how "imposing a mindset" is necessarily a bad thing.

On grammar, I am not inclined as a person to take your ideas as seriously if you don't even take the time or use the intelligence it takes to at least proofread your post, and I am fairly certain I am not the only person who feels this way. Don't take it as a personal bash, because I have noticed several others around here who have similar problems (although some of them are not native English-speakers, so I generally think the fact that they speak English so fluently speaks enough for their dedication and intelligence).

True, although I don't see how "imposing a mindset" is necessarily a bad thing.


What's the point of your music when you already have told your audience how they are suppose to feel?

Well if you're feeling sad listening to Raider's March there would be something wrong with that picture. XD

I don't necessarily think that "imposing a mindset" and "telling your audience how to feel" are the same in the way that I was thinking of them...

I must say this thread is going in an interesting direction. It's gone from talking about music/composers to talking about talking about music/composers. XD

Bound to happen, I have to admit.