Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Forum Rules

A shortened version of the Forums Rules is given below. The full version can be found here.

By maintaining a user account and by posting to these forums, you hereby agree to abide by these rules.

FORUMS RULES - A SNAPSHOT
- Stay safe - protect your privacy and respect the privacy of others
- No abusive, offensive or aggressive postings
- No insults or personal attacks
- No foul language
- No trolling
- No inappropriate or illegal material
- No advertising (including "For Sale" or "Wanted" adverts)
- No crossposting
- No forum spamming
- No defamatory comments
- Avoid using jargon, abbreviations or "text talk"

6 Pages V « < 4 5 6  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> What's wrong with being a Baroque composer now?, Why does it matter when you were born?
corenfa
post Jul 23 2012, 09:47 PM
Post #76


Virtuoso
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 4218
Joined: 28-March 10
From: Here
Member No.: 95861



Having been thinking about the function of composing music, I've realised that I would feel differently about "modern Baroque" music depending on why it had been composed.

I don't go to church but if I did, and if the choir / organist were to perform something that was in a Baroque style, I would judge it differently in my head than if I heard it in a concert hall. I would think of something written for performance in church, in whatever style, as the composer's form of spiritual expression. I think I would probably not feel "cheated" by this as I said I would in an earlier post. The question of why the composer or music director had not simply used some "real Baroque" church music wouldn't even occur to me; they had something spiritual to express by writing this music and so they have done so. I think I would feel similarly about film music now after thinking about this, because I could see how the composer might want to write, out of principle, music that was "historically accurate" for the film, rather than using something existing.

The difference for me is that in a concert hall if I am paying money, I feel that I am being sold a product, which is the composer's creativity, and I would not choose to buy such a product so I would feel cheated if it had been slipped past me. I would feel that it wasn't worth paying to hear something that to me is "not creative enough". Whether that be right or wrong, I would feel that I want to pay money to hear something that is truly new and innovative and to me, writing in a pre-existing style does not meet that bar for paying money. I don't try to apologise for or justify this; it's simply how I feel.

I think that any "modern Baroque" composer wishing to sell their music would probably have a very high bar to reach, as it would have to be more innovative than all of Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, Scarlatti, etc. I think this could be possible but I think it would be extremely difficult. Which is not to say nobody ought to try, but I think if commercial sales were desired, the difficulty of getting those would definitely have to be considered.

The question of whether commercial sales = good composer is yet another question which I'm not prepared to answer.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RoseRodent
post Jul 24 2012, 01:57 PM
Post #77


Prodigy
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1518
Joined: 29-September 09
From: Scotland
Member No.: 76503



I find it very odd that we have a constant desire for new and different music, but seem to have little desire to tinker with established orchestration. A wind band contains this, a symphony orchestra that, a brass band these, a chamber orchestra looks like this. And the instruments themselves, it's a brave composer who writes a concerto for electric keyboard and orchestra, and we are not accepting of new and different instruments. Why shouldn't the wind section of a symphony orchestra contain first and second alto and tenor saxophones? Why is the string section of a chamber orchestra never first and second classical guitar? Why not an ocarania quintet? We tend to start with the standard formula of instruments as a blank score then work on some crazy interesting new chord progressions, but why not have the novelty and innovation in the combination of instruments?

I am now tempted to do my composition project using a baroque orchestra playing modern music. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
FingerTwister
post Jul 24 2012, 02:54 PM
Post #78


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 8-July 10
From: Stourbridge, West Midlands
Member No.: 112983



QUOTE(RoseRodent @ Jul 24 2012, 02:57 PM) *

I am now tempted to do my composition project using a baroque orchestra playing modern music. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)


Like Tchaikovsky's '1812' Overture arranged for recorders and viol consort, you mean? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

There have actually been quite a number of pieces where the composer has tried to 'stretch' the accepted orchestral sound to include non-standard or unusual/exotic instruments - I think Mahler was a great innovator in this respect, and composers like Michael Tippett have included electric guitar and even full rock band with orchestra. It hasn't perhaps become mainstream among modern composers but perhaps it is getting there slowly... reminds me of a certain tv ad... you can't rush these things. But I've yet to be convinced. The end result will still depend on the style of the music being written, not just the instrumentation used. I actually think style and instrumentation are mutual. We have to rely on our ears, and in this respect some things work, some things don't.

FT
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
« Next Oldest · Theory and Composition · Next Newest »
 

6 Pages V « < 4 5 6
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th May 2013 - 09:35 AM