For many years I have dealt with frustration while trying to understand something.
The argument: Bach is known to be one of the greatest composers to ever live and is often the hardest to understand.
That may be true, but I have not arrived at that discovery for myself. Every day in our theory class we look over Bach's chorales over and over, and I have never been amazed, astonished, or excited while viewing/listening to any of them. They just make me want to leave the room and listen to something energy driven. What it comes down to is that if the music sounds fun, it probably isn't Bach. My argument is not to discredit or degrade, but to understand why he is celebrated. I can see how Beethoven is popular for writing music while being deaf. That is quite an accomplishment. His egmont oveture is pretty lively.
What I think greatness is vs. what college thinks is great:
To me greatness is taking something short and simple and creatively making it large and profound. I think its genius to take a short theme or phrase and build a enormous masterpiece from it by wrapping that short idea around and around the masterpiece. (Example: Dvorak Symphony #9 Movements 1-4) Not creating an 80 minute piece with 4 movements playing scattered notes all over the place leaving the audience nothing to whistle while exiting the theater. Writing that way is really confusing and can turn listeners into day dreaming mode.Some of these composers come to mind while mentioning this idea. Mozart, Beethoven, Shubert, Chopin, Bach, Brahms, etc. All of them make their pieces way too long, and don't stick to a creative melody for more than 5-10 seconds. A perfect example of this is Beethoven's 5th. The opening is the most memorable to the world, but very few remember the rest of it because it gets too complex after that.
Some examples of simplicity:
Christmas Music is fantastic because they are memorable, so simple, and easy to repeat. Have you ever heard of a christmas tune that is 60 minutes long with four movements? No. Jingle Bells, Silent Night, and I'm Dreaming Of A White Christmas are very simple and easy to remember.
Broadway music. These are just
a few of the many fantastic examples of simple and profound. Phantom of the Opera, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, The Sound of Music, Les Miserables, etc.
Disney Music. Alan Menken is a pro at taking a very simple catchy melody (like "If I Never Knew You" or "Beauty and the Beast") and creating it into something that can give you chills.
Everyone can remember this music because if follows the rule of short and simple.
Be your own sound:
There are too many classical composers that don't sound original because they copy another composers style and sound. Mozart, Beethoven, and Shubert are all the same style. Tchaikovsky and Dvorak have a very different sound and their work is very original. There is no composer that has imitated a sound similar of The Nutcracker, Sleeping Beauty, or the New World Symphony. The second movement of #9 is beautiful and simple and follows the rule of simple. (It can also be sung to). Recently I presented some of my composing work to a cello professor for further direction and insight, who told me it was nice, but that it sounded too familiar and too similar to what the world already has. To be really successful, he said, I would need to find a sound that nobody else has yet found. Examples of great composers who are very successful at this are: John Williams, Alan Menken, Hans Zimmer, Danny Elfman, Randy Newman, James Newton Howard etc. None of them sound like eachother. Hans Zimmer would never be accused of copyrighting Randy Newman. Hans Zimmer is very aggressive and dark, and Randy Newman is Jazz-like and bright. It is very startling to me that professors and experts who I have talked to, have never heard of these composers.
Its ok to leave the box:
I think that some people think they believe what greatness is and they never leave their box to explore other types of music because they believe they have already found it all. I am talking about colleges and schools that are only open to classical music and no other genre. Honestly I think they worship it. Soundtrack music uses more variety and colors if you want to know the truth. There is a classical structure and routine that makes classical sound like classical. They don't use that structure for movies because it wouldn't be able to reach all emotions, textures, settings because of its limitations. I can't imagine using a Mozart or a Bach approach to write The Pirates of the Caribbean, Tangled, or Wicked. I'm not saying that classical doesn't have emotion. It does. It's just that classical sounds can only get so far. That's why after the classical music time period was over, all the rest of the music game out. (Gospel, Jazz, Alternative, etc.) And where classical can't reach certain sounds because of its limits, thats where the soundtrack genre comes in to help make up the difference.
Summary:
I hope that you understand that my argument is not to discourage or put down classical music. It really is intelligence and art. I would rather have people listening to that than mainstream music today. Here is a bullet summary of my points.
- Greatness is keeping things short and simple and building a profound masterpiece with the simplicity. (Example: Dvorak Symphony #9 Movements 1-4).
- Be original when you write, and don't try to be anybody else.
- Its ok to leave the box of classical art.
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
