|
Post by Umbra on Apr 8, 2012 21:25:31 GMT -5
So we know Beethoven wrote "Fur Elise", the Beatles wrote "Let It Be," and modern-day musicians come up with their own stuff. Can we call it all authentic music, though?
In music composition, like in other creative fields, ideas are borrowed from past composers, whether that be a melodic idea, chord progression, style, or something else. Is that borrowing permissible? If it is, to what extent?
Also, something that I have also thought about as a composer is authenticity of a work regarding compositional methods. There are basically two methods I'm aware of:
1) Using theory or what has worked historically to compose mathematically like Bach. Also, just fiddling around on a notation software for ideas qualifies for this.
2) Composing spiritually. Taking the ideas you hear in your head and transferring them to paper, in some cases not having any knowledge of theory or stylistic practices.
Which of these make for a more authentic piece or are they both correct? Is the piece unbound by form more authentic than the mathematical piece or are they equal?
I want to hear some thoughts before I give my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by sukotsuto on Apr 8, 2012 22:02:47 GMT -5
I have very little idea about music-related subjects, but it sounds almost a lot like art and art history history, with the academic/classical versus the modern/post-modern. With that said, I feel it's somewhere people should play between the two extremes, yet you can compose and create something beautiful in either approach alone.
With that said, to me, they're of equal standing. One approach would that works for one would not work for the other, and is largely based on whether an individual can fully realize their art using the approach they decide on.
|
|
|
Post by Umbra on Apr 8, 2012 22:29:25 GMT -5
I knew you were going to tie my topic to art, because that's great--I think all of the arts are interrelated on the subject of authenticity.
I agree with you though. Any approach should be accepted. Even in the more modern composition both in music and art (with the use of technology), the most important thing is you have a person behind the computer arranging things. They use the computer as a tool, but the computer itself doesn't create the work (And if it did, well the computer had someone program it to do so.)
|
|
|
Post by Phone Master Ion on Apr 9, 2012 22:36:10 GMT -5
I find it hard to distinguish the two options. If I have an idea, I might write it down or sit down to the nearest piano and play it out, and then later put it on an editing program and make serious modifications through "fiddling" with just about everything.
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on May 5, 2013 19:32:19 GMT -5
I don't think one's better than another. At the end of the day, if it sounds good, it sounds good.
I will say that I find the former a bit more interesting, though. I've heard that music is actually quite like math in some respects (and, in fact, prodigious abilities in math and music frequently co-occur). When I think of music composition, I typically tend to think of spontaneous spiritual composition (as you put it), so it's kind of neat to think that you could create pleasant-sounding music just from applying theoretical principles.
The two probably tend to blend the more talented you are at music composition, though. Many music greats, like Paul McCartney, were never formally taught, but I'm sure that they've probably learned most of the theoretical principles over the years of composing and figuring out what works. They might not be able to explicitly state what the principles are, but I would't be surprised if they could execute them in practice.
|
|