Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge The REAL Question...Why Do We Compose?

This may have been discussed here before... But this is THE BIG Question with a Capital Q...

WHY do you compose?

Anyone???

Jeanne W

Because it's way more fun than Decomposing!!--Just Kidding

Why do I compose?
I think its the same as why do I write
a poem, paint a picture, decorate a room,
or create a good meal...its a way to express
that "overflowing" emotion that won't be
contained another minute more...
Its a way of sharing my core...my heart, my
sadness, my ....fill in the blanks.
Composing is selfish in my case. Its way too
much about me, about letting things out. But it
starts in a special place within me, I think..
from my unconscious place...the same place my
dreams evolve from. So it seems to have a lot
of mystery and a kind of "life of its own"...
I can compose in response to others situations too. I wrote a song for my husband for our wedding. I wrote a song about 9/11 around
Christmastime. I've written music for children's
plays because they needed to be written to fit
the story line of the play itself..(when I do
children's plays I do it all..the script, the
music, the costumes, the direction, the set.
Its one of my greatest kicks!)
My inner child is out in full abandon and
I feel fantastic with the process.
For the record, I've not made a dime on my
compositions or things related, but so far
it hasn't mattered a whit.
Its sheer joy.

1. Asked and answered at least twice on the front page of the Composer's Lounge.

2. I'm going to go with the same answer again:

"I hear things that nobody else composed and I want to play them."

Mostly to provoke emotion in the listener. I'm usually thinking of the audience or listener when I write - what emotion I want to express or portray that would bring something out from within others. For example, something relaxing to relieve someone's stress. -Something happy-go-lucky just for fun. -Something sad and somber to provoke reflection. -Something happy to make others "feel" good about themselves. -Something funny to make others laugh.

DISCLAIMER: It is I - JEANNE W, NOT Lloyd W. My Hubby signed on and didn't sign off so it looks like this post is from HIM, but this post is really from ME, Jeanne W. OH, GOOD GRIEF.

It's clear we compose for different reasons. I identify most closely with you, hanna2222. It's a way of expressing oneself. You say:

"Composing is selfish in my case. Its way too
much about me, about letting things out. But it
starts in a special place within me, I think..
from my unconscious place...the same place my
dreams evolve from. So it seems to have a lot
of mystery and a kind of "life of its own"..."

It certainly is about "oneself", isn't it? At least, that's how I feel about it.

And the mystery of it... I once sat down playing around with the notes and something Chinese sounding came out. You just NEVER KNOW what's going to emerge.

Sarabande: I don't ever think about wanting to affect other people's emotions. At least, that's never been a main goal of mine. Hmmm... Something that's never really occured to me. I'm thinking more about the music itself.

Derelux: I LOVE your answer!!

Don't know if there will be many more replies here, since this has already been asked. But I'd love to hear what the rest of you have to say!

Jeanne W

P.S. Lloyd W's "decomposing" reply - that's my Husband for you.

"People compose for many reasons: to become immortal; because the pianoforte happens to be open; because they want to become a millionaire; because of the praise of friends; because they have looked into a pair of beautiful eyes; for no reason whatsoever."

- Robert Schumann


I am the last one.

I hear music, want to write it down. I don't compose to say I compose, and I don't compose for any other reason, but my love for music, and that it makes me happy!

for me, beautiful melodies simply exist. Where? i dont know, but they just exist, they're just there waiting to be heard by a musician who's tickling his imagination. My goal as a composer would be to spot them and put them to practice. So that the rest of the globe could be exposed to them. The special thing is that it was in YOUR ear that those melodies were found, so they're are clearly emerged from your personal emotions.

i'm imprisoned in a jail of creative expression!
No but seriously,
I guess it could be compared to the digestive system of the human body.
food goes in and comes out and your body benefits from the delicious mineral and vitamins
With composing, inspiration comes in from the world and there's all that built up energy that MUST be released. (Regardless of what time of day it is!!! which is why all musicians are crazy:))
That's probably also why creativity comes in waves, We need time to build up the inspiration and then we use it all up!

Carolyn (cyip086)

The question as to why do we compose has the same answer as to why do we have sex. What are the reasons that spur us to want to make love?

I've heard that we eat because of emptiness
and have sex because of "overfullness"..
and creating music is more like sex than
hunger...it seems.

Well, I think it is a bit like both, at least for me. We have this overbearing emptiness, this void to fill with music, and so we do it (in our heads). Then we are glut with music and have a desire to express it, so we write it down.

Anybody else feel that way? Or am I alone? :p

Like sex and food ? No resemblance to either for me. It's a yoga, particularly improvisation. Yes, that's the right word - a yoga. A yoga whose ultimate end is a compact synthesis of complete serenity - like the end of Eliot's "Little Gidding".

"...the fire and the rose are one."

It's a unique way to express emotions. After composing I feel refreshed and fulfilled.

John

I compose because there is just so much *bad* music out there, and I want to have a hand in contributing something worthwhile.

Melodies don't "exist"; People invent them, and that ingenuity and creativity is what drives me. I want to make/do/represent something that has never been done before.

I don't feel that composing is like food. It's not necessary in order to exist. I will say that it is closer to sex, just because, dang, it's fun to do.

I agree Mary. There's a lack of great melodies in music today.

I remember reading in Recording Magazine a short while ago where they had a contest in film music. The top ten finalists were given kudos for their wonderful arranging and production.

Then one critique spoke out "sounds great, but where's the melody?”

The quality of the production/recording of music has never been better. However great, memorable melodies are hard to find.

I center all my composing on the melody. It's the most important element in music (in my opinion).

John

but at the same time, all the great melodies have already been taken in one form or another in the evolution of music

I beg to differ iNBi. If I believed that I’d stop composing.

If they're melodies composed within the six closest related chord structure it's difficult, but not impossible. That’s were the bulk of melodies already composed reside in.

But being bold with the chord structure can find some new and exciting melodies. We’ve only scratched the surface of the melodic spectrum.

Best, John

if ever you go to some today's concerts and heard the new compositions - concerti or orchestra pieces etc, you'd know how disconnected/unrelated those pieces sound. in many modern music, it's totally not about melodies (which if you do use in your composition you're considered not that good a composer or not a professional composer) but about sound/harmonic/disonance painting, where the genius of modern composing techniques lay. i sat through some of those compositions played in concerts, and couldn't remember a thing after my ears being tortured with the sound. so, why do they compose something like that, i had no clue, and still don't!

i don't think there's a reason for why we are composing. as long as you want to do it, then take it as a reason. if that's what brings you the creative enjoyment, then so be it...

And yet, it is the intangibility of such compositions that isolates it from the general population of the world. So, it comes down to the question, "Who's right? The few people who enjoy this sort of thing, or the masses at large who reject it?" (And, of course, there is no right or wrong answer.)

Hi, Everyone:

I'm enjoying reading all of your thoughts and comments.

The reason - or one of the reasons - I compose, is I'm always looking for that beautiful turn of phrase, harmony, something that catches the ear.

I'm "in search of the lost chord", so to speak...

(Moody Blues fans might appreciate what I just said. )

My music, BTW, runs in many different directions. The bulk of it is either classically influenced or new age, with other pieces that seem to emerge unwittingly from *wherever* i.e. a few that sounds like show tunes, a Chinese sounding piece of music, etc. etc. One I just finished my husband thinks sounds Spanish! Some have a melody, others are "mood pieces" sans any real melody.

Jeanne W

"And yet, it is the intangibility of such compositions that isolates it from the general population of the world. So, it comes down to the question, "Who's right? The few people who enjoy this sort of thing, or the masses at large who reject it?" (And, of course, there is no right or wrong answer" - Derulux

I totally agree with Derulux.

Music is subjective, good or bad it’s in the "ears" of the listener.

I don't even think we can come up with a definition for a "great melody". Could we say a great melody is one that's memorable and appealing to the masses? I know what a great melody is to me - but I can't define it. It's just one that captures and stuns me – one that makes me say “Wow”!

Another thing; which is a greater piece of music - a simple tune like "Greensleeves" or a Beethoven Sonata? I would bet "Greensleeves" would come up with a "thumbs up" by a much larger percent of the masses.

Is complex better than simple? Is a great piece of music one that holds up through the test of time and remembered by more people? I’m sure more people could hum Greensleeves than even a small section of a Beethoven Sonata.

Music is a strange phenomenon. What a dull World it would be without it.

I think you're forgetting the "Moonlight".

To continue the discussion, I find it rather pointless to decide what's "better" than something else. That is a quest for power, for superiority...to be on the "ultimate side of 'right'"...basically, to "stand by God." Everyone wants to be that person...the one the answers, the one who knows everything about something, the one who can do something better than everyone else...because society has preconditioned us to want to excel at one thing. It has become our meaning of life (which is, by the way, whatever we define it to be).

I think, using this principle, we can formulate a question that is answerable through the question, "What do we want classical music to become?" That is a goal...a tangible future effect of some cause we must begin in the present. If we want classical music to become popular again, then we can reasonably expect that its current path of "melodical haze" is the wrong path, because it will not get us to our goal. If, however, we do not care whether or not classical music moves into obscurity, then this "musical soup" we're being spoon fed can continue.

So, I think a more answerable question, "Where do you want classical music to go?" is the first question that should be asked. (Nearly invariably, I've heard the answer, "I want it to be popular again." But then, the same people who answer this are unwilling to accept what it means to move back into the mainstream, and so I sincerely doubt it will ever get there but by a radical change in listenership that will isolate and remove the previous listenership from the community.)

Even the "Moonlight". Not much of a melody without the accompaniment. There lies another thought on melodies. Is a great melody one that can stand alone and be memorable without the accompaniment? Most people can't hum in harmony.

Maybe we shouldn't label music at all. Let each piece of music stand on its on merit.

Here’s a piece of music I composed many years ago when I was a Classical music snob (in manuscript). I’m glad I evolved past my limited appreciation of music. I do notice even back then I was melody conscious though.

I never get tired of sharing my music. Without an audience music dies a slow death.

Best, John

Romance -Page 1:
http://www.artistcollaboration.com/~johnny-boy/Romancepg1.pdf
Romance -Page 2:
http://www.artistcollaboration.com/~johnny-boy/Romancepg2.pdf

I usually say that you have to be driven, to write. But I like very much your way of expressing that thought.

And isn't it lovely how the subconscious sends us the information? And sometimes funny, too. Last week it sent a bridge that I needed. Apparently it was not satisfied with my rendering and three days later sent me a clarification;-)

The only disagreement I have is that it's *not* too much about you. What we call composing is just a formal recognition of a very basic human impulse: the joy of making music.

All the best.

I usually compose my best pieces it seems when.....lol....im in an angry mood......for me, composing lets out my feelings. Whenever I compose, I have some sort of feelings deep inside, and thats what makes each and every peice different in its own way. Or I have some sad, yet soothing pieces.

Basically, being able to compose, for me is like being able to express my feelings, recording them, then being able to later play it over and over again.

I hear you Monica!

I've been told that there's the element of tragedy in everything I compose.

Best, John

If melody is nessary for popularity then how do explain the populartiy of rap music?

The popularity of rap music is more a social movement (cult) and an attitude (for better or worse). It has little to do with music (there are a few exceptions though).

The message of rap music is what draws people to it (but I can’t figure out why). Much of it is about urban gangs, violence, drug use, and the degradation of women – a depressing message indeed.

Take the music out of rap (often it's just a primitive rhythm and a chord or two) and it would still be popular.

Best, John

If melody is nessary for popularity then how do explain the populartiy of rap music?
*cough*lyrics*cough*

Though it is an entirely different genre with an entirely different set of musical "rules", even the most popular rap songs have "hummable melodies" (many of Eminem's #1 hits being good examples).

Also, let's not forget that when kids go to these concerts, they identify with the artists because of the raw emotion, energy, and 'electricity' of the performers. There is very little "show" at a classical concert, and, in fact, any attempt to do such garners a negative response from the community. (This would fall under the category of all the "excessive movements" people bash Lang Lang for....) It is a very "Victorian" environment, which is probably what helped to doom the genre into obscurity in the first place. But isn't this really an entirely different topic from the thread?

Quote

Originally posted by Johnny-Boy:


The message of rap music is what draws people to it (but I can’t figure out why). Much of it is about urban gangs, violence, drug use, and the degradation of women – a depressing message indeed.

Take the music out of rap (often it's just a primitive rhythm and a chord or two) and it would still be popular.

Best, John

I don't think that is the case. I find with pretty much everybody it is the beat that comes first in why they like rap music. Flow is above all the most important factor in rap, the lyrics often times are just their hel the flow. Read the lyrics most of the time they are completely retarted...unless used in musical context.

Random example: Snoop Dogg

Uh! I'm a nice dude, with some nice dreams
See these ice cubes, see these Ice Creams?
Eligible bachelor, million dollar boat
That's whiter than what's spilling down your throat
The Phantom, exterior like fish eggs
The interior like suicide wrist red
I can excercise you, this can be your Phys. Ed
Cheat on your man ma, that's how you get ahizzead
Killer wit the beat, I know killers in the street
Wit the steel that'll make you feel like Chinchilla in the heat
So don't try to run up on my ear talking all that raspy ---
Trying to ask me ---
When my --- fill ya vest they ain't gon pass me ---
You should think about it, take a second
Matter fact, you should take four beat
And think before you --- wit lil skateboard P

---------------------------------------------------

...

The lyrics just don't make sense without some sort of musical tie in. like diction, beat, energy, confidence, production enhancement, and so forth...


Also if people just relied on lyrics and message to dictate what they like, how does that explain other popular songs that give off good messages...

I can-Nas

Lyrics:

e, B-Boys and girls, listen again
This is for grown looking girls who's only ten
The ones who watch videos and do what they see
As cute as can be, up in the club with fake ID
Careful, 'fore you meet a man with HIV
You can host the TV like Oprah Winfrey
Whatever you decide, be careful, some men be
Rapists, so act your age, don't pretend to be
Older than you are, give yourself time to grow
You thinking he can give you wealth, but so
Young boys, you can use a lot of help, you know
You thinking life's all about smoking weed and ice
You don't want a be my age and can't read and write
Begging different women for a place to sleep at night
Smart boys turn to men and do whatever they wish
If you believe you can achieve, then say it like this

or

When I'm Gone-Eminem

or other pop songs like

A Moment Like This-Kelly Clarkson

which give off good messages and are innocent and yet spend just as much or more time on the top of the charts then others which give off negative messages.

I don't think the message is what completley dictates popularity, to many contridictions.

Quote

Originally posted by Derulux:

Though it is an entirely different genre with an entirely different set of musical "rules", even the most popular rap songs have "hummable melodies" (many of Eminem's #1 hits being good examples).

Not really. I can't think of any rap songs off the top of my head that you could hum and people would reconize it.

Yeah-Usher
In da Club-50 cent
Get Lo- Lil John
Mosh- Eminem
Red Light District-Ludicris
Wait (the whisper song)-Ying Yang twins

These songs don't have hummable melodies. Just beats and hooks, sounds and energy.


I think your right on target in the last part of this. I do think that Victorian enviornment helped steer people away of classical concerts.

It is a different topic from the thread...but I think anytime that somebody says something bold like...paraphrasing...hazy, ambiguous melodic material = unpopular music, requires a little more thought. Their are many popular songs and styles out their that do not rely on melody or simple harmonies to get a fan base. .... Case and point. Jazz.

Snap,

Put squeeky clean lyrics in rap music and see how well it sells.

John

While my last is most certainly the first and foremost reason for classical music's eulogical lament, I still stand by the recognizability of melodical lines in popular rap music. Usually, it's in the chorus... for example, in the lyrics, "I'm Slim Shady, yes I'm the real Shady, all you other Slim Shady's..." etc. there is a line you can hum and recognize. Now, some of the more gifted singers in rap music have been able to do more with a melody, but they are few and far between. Most rappers would agree they can't sing.

However, you are right. For most rap music, the lyrics are the recognizable parts...which is why I said it doesn't belong in a comparison with classical music, because most of the latter is instrumental, so the "words" of the story are the melodical lines. (So, if you want to compare, you have to compare the melodies of classical music to the lyrics of rap music. That, I think, would be a more equal comparison.)

I did...

Nas-I can (a top seller...#13 on the top selling single charts in 2003)


Kids]
I know I can (I know I can)
Be what I want a be (be what I want a be)
If I work hard at it (If I work hard at it)
I'll be where I want a be (I'll be where I want a be)

[Nas]
Be, B-Boys and girls, listen up
You can be anything in the world, in God we trust
An architect, doctor, maybe an actress
But nothing comes easy it takes much practice
Like, I met a woman who's becoming a star
She was very beautiful, leaving people in awe
Singing songs, Lena Horn, but the younger version
Hung with the wrong person
got her strung on that heroin
cocaine sniffing up drugs all in her nose...
Coulda died, so young, now looks ugly and old
No fun cause now when she reaches for hugs people hold they breath
Cause she smells of corrosion and death
Watch the company you keep and the crowd you bring
Cause they came to do drugs and you came to sing
So if you gonna be the best, I'm a tell you how,
Put your hands in the air, and take a vow

[Chorus - 2x (Nas and Kids)]
I know I can (I know I can)
Be what I want a be (be what I want a be)
If I work hard at it (If I work hard at it)
I'll be where I want a be (I'll be where I want a be)

[Nas]
Be, B-Boys and girls, listen again
This is for grown looking girls who's only ten
The ones who watch videos and do what they see
As cute as can be, up in the club with fake ID
Careful, 'fore you meet a man with HIV
You can host the TV like Oprah Winfrey
Whatever you decide, be careful, some men be
Rapists, so act your age, don't pretend to be
Older than you are, give yourself time to grow
You thinking he can give you wealth, but so
Young boys, you can use a lot of help, you know
You thinking life's all about smoking weed and ice
You don't want a be my age and can't read and write
Begging different women for a place to sleep at night
Smart boys turn to men and do whatever they wish
If you believe you can achieve, then say it like this

[Chorus]

[Nas]
Be, be, 'fore we came to this country
We were kings and queens, never porch monkeys
It was empires in Africa called Kush
Timbuktu, where every race came to get books
To learn from black teachers who taught Greeks and Romans
Asian, Arabs and gave them gold when
Gold was converted to money it all changed
Money then became empowerment for Europeans
The Persian military invaded
They heard about the gold, the teachings, and everything sacred
Africa was almost robbed naked
Slavery was money, so they began making slave ships
Egypt was the place that Alexander the Great went
He was so shocked at the mountains with black faces
Shot off they nose to impose what basically
Still goes on today, you see?
If the truth is told, the youth can grow
Then learn to survive until they gain control
Nobody says you have to be gangstas, hoes
Read more learn more, change the globe
Ghetto children, do your thing
Hold your head up, little man, you're a king
Young Princess when you get your wedding ring
Your man is saying "She's my queen"

[Chorus]

---------------------------


Derulux,

A singable, lyrical melody (hummable) just isn't in rap music. The slim shady song pushes it...but reconizable by humming it? ...maybe, barely.

But what about techno. Techno music is popular and only consists of beats and sounds. It has no melody and no lyrics yet it is fairly popular...certainly more popular then modern classical music.

And what about Jazz. Jazz is popular, certainley more expected then modern classical music and yet the harmonies are just as complex as any atonal piece of music out their and so are the rhythms. It also has no lyrics. So why are these to genres of music so much more accepted then modern classical music?

Why not?

It depends on how far into techno you want to go. Certainly groups like the "Vengaboys" have hummable melodies.

That's all hardly techno. The 'no melody' stuff would be harcore, but even that has plenty of melodic content if you really look into it. Rap and R&B is obvousky filled with catchy melodies and riffs. Rap is not all about drugs, violence and sex, that's gangsta rap which unfortunately happens to be on MTV all the time. Every popular music genre, including rap, hardcore, industrial and whatnot is still based on rhythm and melody foremost. As it has almost always been in the western world.

ANother way to look at it is this:

Music is supposed to be a sonic way to transfer an emotion, idea or story to the audience. Obviously the vast majority of this world has great difficulties connecting with classical music and not so with many other (often considered inferior) genres. One could say that the modern world is tasteless but one could just as easily argue that classical composers these day just fail miserably at writing proper music.

Take Yann Tiersen for example. His music often sounds quite classical, yet his work is very popular. I know absolutely noone who doesn't like his piano stuff from Amelie, even the people who generally only listen to trance music. Why is that? Because Mr. Tiersen is not just able to write beautifull melodies (which people still dig these days!) bu the is able to write songs with them that keep the attention through variation without going overboard with all kinds of harmonic content hardly anyone gives a crap about. His solo piano music sells better then many a famous MTV rapper, there is a huge market for properly written piano music.

If we want classical music to be reborn all we have to do is write proper music. And if we can't we should not be surprised to see people buy a Celine Dion album instead.

I completely agree, and would like to add the argument: If classical music is, indeed, superior to all other forms of music, and listeners strive to listen to the "best" music, then it reasonably follows that it should be the most-popular form. Since it is not, one of two things (or both) is at fault:

1. The music itself
2. The community

In this case, I think it is both. The classical community has created (whether willingly or not) an isolated community where those "outside" the community "can't possibly understand classical music". There is also something that is not appealing about today's compositions that was appealing in previous generations...otherwise the community wouldn't matter, and it would be overrun and transformed by each generation. So, take from it what you will.

What rebellion there is to be found in music is no longer in the classical genre, and so youth as moved elsewhere...where they can be "wrong" and not care, where they can be kids again (like they're supposed to be), and most-importantly, where adults can kiss their asses. Nobody in the classical world wants to see that "infest" classical music. In essence, a Japanese proverb is preferred over Wagner's: "Make it new" takes a back seat to "The nail that sticks up gets pounded down."

Or the third option: the audience.

I think you, Derulux, just can't accept the fact that not all people automatically (i.e. without sufficient exposure in their baby- and childhood) can grasp the complexities and nuances of what make classical music most appealing to those who can. Science is against you there, Lux.

It's a similar thing in any other medium as well. Think about literature, or fiction; a series of phrases with well weighed assonances doesn't sink in with everybody (that is, no part of their mind, conscious or less so, notices or is affected by deliberate half-rhymes and the rhythms they create).

15 year olds tend to be unable to differentiate between ironic and literal texts (the subtler the irony gets, the more easily you can add some 4 to 5 years).

Or think about cinema. People have gotten used to Hollywood films where everything is being continuously explained through dialog, or even voice narration; and also to films that mainly consist of special effects and vapid dialog. . . .

Is it a wonder, then, that when the general guy sees a film that mainly uses the expressive tools characteristic of the medium (images and sounds) to tell the story, the general guy complains about the dialog's scanty occurence, and is, to all appereances, heavily bored (and maybe even admits it)?

Damn...all I see is "Image hosted by Tripod"

Actually, science isn't against me, when you say the argument correctly. Classical music is in the minority. It garners less than 3% of the market. So, in my argument, I'm saying 3% of the people are wrong. In yours, you're saying the other 97% are wrong. (Though, technically, if by "the audience" you mean "the people who go and sit and listen to a classical performance," I covered them under "the community." But I gather this is not what you meant. )

Here, I put it on a different server:

Nope, didn't mean the classical music audience, as you deciphered.

As to the rest, and to your percentages in particular... Wrong, or right, in what?

My argument is the, nowadays (since I've piped up about it so many times before), old one in these forums, which you mentioned in your earlier post, but don't perhaps yet thoroughly understand: most people can't grasp classical music, and hence, classical isn't nearly as widely enjoyed as some pop hits seem to be.

Science supports me in the details of 'how' (how they don't understand, how does somebody else understand, etc.?).

Your speculations seem all right to me as far as they go, in that classical music could perhaps be made much more popular through the methods you advocate. However, the fundamental flaw of all that would be that sells figures don't tell about the amount of understanding that consumers have for different products nor the enjoyment they derive from them.

If there is something in your arguments that I haven't understood, let me know. After all, what would be the point of dejecting a theory or an argument without fully understanding its ins and outs...

lol

Mr. Jerome: Beautiful pic!

Mr. Hamus:
Nope, didn't mean the classical music audience, as you deciphered.
If you re-read what I wrote, that is NOT what I deciphered.

My argument is the, nowadays (since I've piped up about it so many times before), old one in these forums, which you mentioned in your earlier post, but don't perhaps yet thoroughly understand: most people can't grasp classical music, and hence, classical isn't nearly as widely enjoyed as some pop hits seem to be.
I find this to be a load of crap, speaking not to you, but to the notion in general that classical music requires such a "high mind" to understand. In that case, the "higher minds" should understand classical music better than just the "high minds", or at what point can it be universally understood that all the "high minds" have an equal understanding of classical music?

I'm sorry, but for all the high-and-mighty mumbo-jumbo, classical music is what every other genre is: music. And the most superior kind of music is the one everybody can understand, because the point of music is to resonate on some level with a universal audience. So, if classical music can only be understood by the "top 5" (standard deviation on an IQ curve to denote "gifted" levels of intelligence), then I would say that it is, in fact, inferior to other forms of music currently reaching and touching a much larger audience.

Science supports me in the details of 'how' (how they don't understand, how does somebody else understand, etc.?).
I would love to hear this....

If there is something in your arguments that I haven't understood, let me know. After all, what would be the point of dejecting a theory or an argument without fully understanding its ins and outs...
Sure. Your argument suggests it is a result of failing to understand complexities and nuances in classical music that does two things. First, it makes classical music superior (the main argument I was debunking). Second, it results in a lack of listenership.

Had you stuck to, "Because listeners are not exposed to it young, they have no social orientation with which to apply classical music as a function in their lives," I would've wholeheartedly agreed.

Oh, and if you really do perform this little experiment, be sure to always play the subsequent intervals at different registers (i.e. if you first play a middle C, and the E from the same octave, then, next, play a note from a much higher, or a much lower, octave (and another note from the same octave as the last one, to complete the "second interval")). And feel free to come up with even more reliable experiments.

In Oscar season there is a correlation in filmmaking. Many of the winning flicks were at best limited successes. This seems to be true more often than not. This year's contenders are Walk the Line and Brokeback Mountain, neither of which brought in the big bucks of Star Wars Episode III or Harry Potter. But the people who vote for Oscars are the film makers and actors, the people who care about craft. And often after a film has won an Oscar it makes quite a bit more money in rerelease.

For popular music we have the Grammy's (which like it or not don't really apply to classical music) and no one pays attention to the Pulitzer Prize (because it's classical music). So the issue with classical music isn't the ability to comprehend it, it's the elitism that surrounds it. Find some classical bad boys and maybe you'll sell something (but will it be craft?).

I compose because I like to hear and play what I write. It's important to me. Is there any other reason?

I don't think that's sound logic.

There are indeed "tricks" that one could use to make classical music sell more, but, as you seem to imply in the parenthesis, sell figures don't correspond with quality, and, as I've pointed out earlier, if you get classical music to sell like Harry Potter through extra-musical means, it will be most probable that people just buy it and listen to it because of extra-musical reasons, and don't really derive from it the enjoyment that more musically perceptive people do.

Reread what you quoted, since you failed to comprehend it the first two or three times...at this point, it's just boring me.

I think you are, even if a bit clumsily, getting at something:
Sometimes I like to put things in a more blunt or laid-back manner. I find it can be more efficient than overly-academized formal diction. While the latter will often contain less objectionables, the former is usually easier to understand for the general audience.

Have you read or heard about the concept of 'schemas'?
In what capacity? A diagrammatic outline? Or were you speaking psychologically (patterns imposed on complex reality to assist in explaining it)? Or is there a new one I don't know about?

If you think that people can actually derive some meaning or feeling from something they can't perceive
I never made that argument...anywhere....

Also, if there is any doubt about whether or not most people's musical perception is sufficient, you can start asking, in an arbitrary manner, 'can you concentrate on and follow all the three voices at the same time in this fugue?'
Nobody can. It's impossible. The human brain is not capable of parallel processing. What you can do is very fast sequential processing, where you switch back-and-forth very quickly, but you cannot do both at once (or in this case, all three things).

If the reply to the former question is 'no', then the person who so replied can't perceive those three voices (at the same time, as they are supposed to be perceived).
Actually, if the reply is "yes", the person is deceiving themselves.

Or you can just witness how people sing wildly out of tune in a church or school, without as much as a hint of embarrassment or shame (that is to say, without realizing they are doing so).
So, a person should feel shameful that they are trying to actively participate in music simply because they cannot sing the right pitches? (If that's the case, we have very different definitions of what music "is".)
---------------------------------------------

In Oscar season there is a correlation in filmmaking. Many of the winning flicks were at best limited successes.
Actually, the greatest correlation is this: The films that win the Oscars usually (because it doesn't always happen) have producers who spend the most money campaigning to win the Oscars.

But I do like your analogy...that the views of film makers and actors do not reflect the views of the public at large, almost entirely because of their bias (I would say, though you did not). It is an interesting correlation we can draw, that the more "intelligible" a person is with regard to some artistic craft, the farther their views of that craft are from public desire.

So the issue with classical music isn't the ability to comprehend it, it's the elitism that surrounds it. Find some classical bad boys and maybe you'll sell something (but will it be craft?).
No, the issue with classical music has never been the music itself. I've been saying that since I joined the forum. The problem is actually inherent in your last statement, though you didn't make the full point: marketing. Unfortunately, it's the classical community that is preventing itself from coming back into the mainstream, and that will not change. You will have one of two things happen: either the community will continually grow smaller, or at some point in the future, will be completely cast aside for a newer, larger community that is closer to the mainstream. There is no other way. (Now, the eventual reformation of the old community to join the new community may take place, but at some point, for classical music to continue/come back into the mainstream, there will have to be a radical shift that absolutely shakes the community to the core.)

And this is exactly why:
There are indeed "tricks" that one could use to make classical music sell more, but, as you seem to imply in the parenthesis, sell figures don't correspond with quality, and, as I've pointed out earlier, if you get classical music to sell like Harry Potter through extra-musical means, it will be most probable that people just buy it and listen to it because of extra-musical reasons, and don't really derive from it the enjoyment that more musically perceptive people do.

"AH:Have you read or heard about the concept of 'schemas'?
D:In what capacity? A diagrammatic outline? Or were you speaking psychologically (patterns imposed on complex reality to assist in explaining it)? Or is there a new one I don't know about?"

Psychologically. And they aren't patterns to *explain*, but patterns through which alone we can perceive and understand different visual and aural stimuli, and which are born through repeated experiences.

"AH:If you think that people can actually derive some meaning or feeling from something they can't perceive
D:I never made that argument...anywhere...."

I never said you did. Justed wanted to make an attempt at being thorough...

"AH:Also, if there is any doubt about whether or not most people's musical perception is sufficient, you can start asking, in an arbitrary manner, 'can you concentrate on and follow all the three voices at the same time in this fugue?'
D:Nobody can. It's impossible. The human brain is not capable of parallel processing. What you can do is very fast sequential processing, where you switch back-and-forth very quickly, but you cannot do both at once (or in this case, all three things)."

If that's what they taught you in school, I have to say they taught wrong. Scientifically, the question has never been resolved (the question of 'is it about rapid shifts of concentration or something else?'); and practically, I believe there to be any number of people on this forum who can testify against your statement (unless you keep on insisting that our concentration just shifts so rapidly that we are merely deceiving ourselves by thinking that we hear different voices simultaneously). There are even people who can *auralize* multiple simultaneous voices.

"AH:Or you can just witness how people sing wildly out of tune in a church or school, without as much as a hint of embarrassment or shame (that is to say, without realizing they are doing so).
D:So, a person should feel shameful that they are trying to actively participate in music simply because they cannot sing the right pitches? (If that's the case, we have very different definitions of what music "is".)"

They would if they could hear the fact that they are singing wildly out of tune. The phenomenon demonstrates their lack of sufficient musical perception.

Psychologically. And they aren't patterns to *explain*, but patterns through which alone we can perceive and understand different visual and aural stimuli, and which are born through repeated experiences.
I imagine being from Finland that your native language is not English, but Finnish. I often forget this in forums and rather arrogantly presume everyone speaks the same language I do. So, pardon my previous comment about being 'bored' with your misinterpretations. The above is another example of a misinterpretation of something I said. If you care for an explanation, feel free to ask....

I never said you did. Justed wanted to make an attempt at being thorough...
By saying, "If you think..." you have, effectively, said precisely that which you claim not to have said.

If that's what they taught you in school, I have to say they taught wrong.
Really? Well, then use your massive unprecedented parallel processor of a brain and go turn two different TVs on. Turn them to two different stations airing two different half-hour programs (with NO commercials). At the end of the half hour, tell me what each program was about. Don't want to use a TV? Here's another one: Read a book while "listening" to the TV. First, you need to know how fast you can read. Then you read that same amount of material while listening to the TV. At the end of the interval, tell me what happened both in the reading material and on the TV. NOBODY has ever been able to do this.

There are even people who can *auralize* multiple simultaneous voices.
I've heard of the Tibetan monks. They don't say two different things at once...they just learn to speak in two different pitches at once.

They would if they could hear the fact that they are singing wildly out of tune. The phenomenon demonstrates their lack of sufficient musical perception.

No, it doesn't. It does not account for the people who can hear the difference but just don't care. (And that's only one of the groups not accounted for in your "study".)

Pet Peeve time.

Don't you hate when someone makes a statement then says nothing to support it?

From "no one pays attention to the Pulitzer Prize, because it's classical music" does not, in any logical way imaginable, follow that "the issue with classical music isn't the ability to comprehend it, but the elitism that surrounds it". If, however, you feel that it does, it rests on your shoulders to further elaborate on how you think that it does.

Derulux, there's nothing wrong with my understanding of the language in this case.

As for the rest, I've written enough about this subject for the time being. He understands who is so inclined.

*laughs* Yes, very much. My biggest peeve, though, is when someone misreads what you wrote, then claims to know what you have said, argues their point regardless, and continues to pretend to be on moral high-ground. That's when I stop because it isn't worth it anymore to continue.

My point was that the issue of quality vs. popularity is not unique to classical music, therefore it seems reasonable to conclude thatit is not the issue that explains the lack of popularity of classical music. The elitism comment is my personal opinion. Sorry if I wasn't clear, have I explained it well now?

Perhaps, but your analogy is still fallacious, since they are two different things. Not to mention all the glaring differences between the two mediums, Oscar gala was originally created for marketing purposes, and that's what it still is: a big marketing ploy. If you think that they give awards to films based on artistic merits, then you don't know much about cinema beyond Hollywood. Kubrick, for one, never won the oscar for the best director. But then again, he had moved to England, away from America. Also, Oscars have a seperate category for foreign films, which would be utterly ridiculous if Oscars were actually something else than a Hollywood marketing ploy.

And the popularity isn't the real issue (as I've said a couple of times), because products can be made popular through sheer magnitude of marketing... Popularity doesn't tell anything about how much people derive enjoyment from something, and so on... I happen to know many people more or less well who don't care much at all about music. If they "listen" to music, they "listen" to it as a background music for something else they do. They don't get sucked in by the music, or anything. Some catchy phrase here or there is all they give a damn about. If you play them some classical music piece, they are ignorant of too many things happening in the music, of almost everything, in fact...

(...)

If I have seemed very lazy in my arguments, and so on, that's because the things about musical perception are so obvious that you only have to open your eyes and begin to observe people, ask them questions, play them some music, etc., and come to see what they think about music and how they perceive it.

And anybody (Derulux, at least) who thinks that it's impossible to auralize multi-voiced music in your mind, such as four-part fugues, needs to do the above described opening of his eyes and get himself out of his cellar (consult Pianistcomposer (ask whether or not he can do it), for example), before he merits any further attention to himself and his sayings or writings about any related subject.

Really, the subject is quite ridiculous... I think I'm taking a few months vacation from it.

For popular music we have the Grammy's (which like it or not don't really apply to classical music) - Steve Chandler

Grammy Classical Catagories:

Best Orchestral Performance
Best Classical Vocal Performance
Best Classical Performance, Operatic or Choral
Best Opera Recording
Best Choral Performance
Best Classical Performance - Instrumental Soloist or Soloists (with or without orchestra)
Best Instrumental Soloist(s) Performance (with orchestra)
Best Instrumental Soloist Performance (without orchestra)
Best Small Ensemble Performance (with or without conductor)
Best Chamber Music Performance
Best Classical Contemporary Composition
Best Classical Album
Best Classical Crossover Album
Best New Classical Artist

John

Hey Snap_apple, have I told you lately that I love you? Thank you for taking the time to respond in such a thoughtful way.

Indeed, I think I am also in love. So, back off Steve. :p

ROTFLMAOSMTMN!!!!

(rolling on the floor laughing my a$$ off spitting milk through my nose)

This could be fun, two martial artists (both Black Belts) fighting over a snap (what do you wanna bet she's married?).

I just noticed Johnny Boy was kind enough to list all the classical Grammy categories. I was in fact aware that Grammy's are awarded to classical artists, but those awards are not announced during the big show on TV. My impression is that the only people who pay attention are those who get nominated. My point is I was aware that Grammy's are awarded for classical recordings and yet I still made that comment. Gee I wonder why?

She's probably married...but probably won't say anything until after we've ripped each other to shreds. *shakes head* Women.... :p

LOL..

Hate to kill the mood guys but....

...I'm a guy too.

.........

What would Homer say????

DOH!

Ah, and for a second, I thought you were talking about the bard. I was going to mention Ovid, but have now thought better of it, and will comb my desk for Mr. Burns' "kill everyone else in the room" button. :p

Though I do feel better knowing we both made the mistake. :p

There's a lesson here I think.

John

Lemme guess, check a person's profile before expressing too much appreciation for an excellent post. Did I guess right? My excuse was I was having fun, what's your excuse?

No, that's not it. The lesson was "never assume the gender identity of your cyber friends".

Best, John

Lemme guess, check a person's profile before expressing too much appreciation for an excellent post. Did I guess right? My excuse was I was having fun, what's your excuse?
I did do that. "It's" profile is non-gender specific. :p

The lesson was "never assume the gender identity of your cyber friends".
So, John...... :p

I'm not talkin'

His handle clearly identifies him as an immature male (i.e. Boy). Sorry couldn't resist.

Some boys are more mature than adults Steve. Hmm...

Sorry I couldn't resist.

I guess the bottom line on why we compose is we love doing it and we love having done it - especially when the final product turns out exactly how we imagined (or even better).

Composing is like a creative puzzle. We all have the same pieces of the puzzle, but we arrange them in our own unique way.

Composing music gives a feeling of immortality. It's kind of like leaving a little piece of us behind.

Best, John

Man, all this inability to resist...maybe I should sit on the couch and just watch? *sings* Steve and Johnny-Boy sittin' in a tree... :p (Man, I've wanted to sing that soooo many times since I was six... :p )

don't change the subject.

This is the subject.

Sometimes I just get a tune in my head and I can't rest until I get it out. Sometimes the tune is something I heard, other times the tune is my own.