You know what? Rachmaninoff was an Original, an Innovator!!

[opus10no2]

Adjusting our perceptions of Musical Innovation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Composers who Cultivate(d) their own Musical Identity post 1910
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't just about Rachmaninoff but about post 1910 Classical Music as a whole.

But I did want to single out Rachmaninoff as a prime example of the problem I want to get at.

I hear so many people saying Rach was a man born after his time, that his Music follows tradition, that it was nothing new. Critics of the time were especially ridiculous and claimed he would be forgotten.

Now when I was first getting into his music...sure I heard that his language was Tonal, Melodic, used Harmony that was largely ground already covered.

But is that really the measure of ORIGINALITY in music?

Upon exploring his Music more you discover how truly unique and inimitable his writing really is - you don't need to invent a new language to be original, to have personality, and to forge your own important place in Music History.

It is this very mindset that played a role in the public mistrust of NEW Classical Music.

Brahms was seen as a carbon copy of Beethoven by his detractors in his time....How ridiculous was that? Their music shares superficial similarities, somewhat, but upon exploring any great music in depth we discover the originality.

It is this superficial view of originality and innovation in Music that has ruined the potential of many composers post 1910.

Composers for the most part thought that in order to be respected, taken seriously, and performed...they must innovate by EXTENDING musical language itself. Sure it created many new brilliant works of art - but this attitude created a dead end for many people.

We don't have to extend musical language to be original, all we must do is forge a Personality and use existing language in new ways. We don't need to reinvent the wheel - we simply need to use the existing wheel we have to explore new ground.  

Think of how moronic the world of literature would be if it began criticizing books for not constantly inventing new words, reinventing language....how stupid!

[mjames]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Just because you're "tonal" doesn't make your music unoriginal, it's bollocks that so many people actually have that mindset. Rachmaninov had a clear stylistic language, even if I don't know the piece itself I'd probably still be able to go like "Ahhh, must be Rachmaninov." You can't say the same about most musicians.

[opus10no2]

Take the Addinsell Warsaw Concerto for example - supposedly written to be in the 'style of Rach' - and as fun a piece as it is - it only superficially resembles Rach.

I hope more Modern and Future composers have this attitude to Music too, the possibilities within tonality are endless.

We could debate whether it's a greater achievement to write Rach 3 or Rite of Spring.

Both are masterworks but many 'critics' would argue the latter is the greater 'achievement'.

I'd argue that both are tremendous achievements.

One(Stravinsky) expands the language of music and creates something memorable with it, and the other(Rach) barely expands musical language at all but creates something so transcendent and wonderful that could never be written by anyone else.

[isaach]

I would argue that classical music was killed off by people who were obsessed with "expanding" harmonic language over taste and solid beautiful writing. Once you forget that music is supposed to relate to the people listening to it, you've essentially failed, in my mind, no matter what the text books say. Music is a language, and if your average person hears and thinks, "oh, did a five year old write that?",then you've failed.
As a pianist, I would never lump Rocky in with 19th century composers- his super romantic style Sounds nothing like liszt, chopin, ir brahms for example- ant more than the Beatles sound like Nirvana. It's not about expanding the language, it's only about having the talent to consistently write effective, meaningful music that a wide variety of people can enjoy.

[opus10no2]

Yeah those 'modern critics' who like to sound clever and superior were and are deaf to the idiosyncrasies in the writing of great composers who chose to stay tonal and work within pre-existing frameworks.

It's good to see though that in some form - some modern composers thrive, particularly in the film soundtrack realm - look at John Williams - his language is nothing new but he is a genius in his own right

[ted]

I agree completely with the original thought. I also think that the conscious search for one's own musical personality, especially in terms of cultivated difference or worse, iconoclasm, is a mistake. Better to simply carry on creating music which, at least to you, possess beauty and transporting power, and is a true abstract manifestation of your psyche in as profound a way as possible, with no regard for whether its properties might be considered old or new. Let any emergent personality form of its own accord, it might take decades but it will sooner or later, and might be something surprising, entirely different from what you had imagined. Learning to be yourself cannot be forced, it just seems to happen. Mind you, I am just an amateur, outsider player, unconcerned with comparisons or posterity, but the same mechanism probably operates in higher musical and social modes.

[josh93248]

I find this entire conversation rather uplifting 

[opus10no2]

I agree completely with the original thought. I also think that the conscious search for one's own musical personality, especially in terms of cultivated difference or worse, iconoclasm, is a mistake. Better to simply carry on creating music which, at least to you, possess beauty and transporting power, and is a true abstract manifestation of your psyche in as profound a way as possible, with no regard for whether its properties might be considered old or new. Let any emergent personality form of its own accord, it might take decades but it will sooner or later, and might be something surprising, entirely different from what you had imagined. Learning to be yourself cannot be forced, it just seems to happen. Mind you, I am just an amateur, outsider player, unconcerned with comparisons or posterity, but the same mechanism probably operates in higher musical and social modes.

Ted, I spoke of my 'mosaic' approach of viewing Musical construction on a micro level in another post. I find that the people with the least remarkable 'originality' are those who hero-worship one composer in particular, or confine themselves to one style.

If we trace back to every great composer with their own voice we can see traces of combining influences that hadn't been combined before.

I'm a huge fan of the composer York Bowen and I read that his music is 'just a hodge-podge of his influences' - this is true on some level of all great composers but I'd defend the greatness of this composer in particular for assimilating his influences to create something new - something that concocts a new recipe out of familiar ingredients.

The ingredient and recipe analogy is also an amusing one to make, we know what tastes and sounds good, so we make dishes/works with the sounds we like.

Who would think to throw in feces into a meal just to create a new recipe?
In a way this is what I think many composers did - instead of challenging themselves to forge new tastes with pre-existing tried and tested tasty ingredients - they incorporated the aural equivalent of fecal matter in their music! 

[ted]

The ingredient and recipe analogy is also an amusing one to make, we know what tastes and sounds good, so we make dishes/works with the sounds we like.

Who would think to throw in feces into a meal just to create a new recipe?
In a way this is what I think many composers did - instead of challenging themselves to forge new tastes with pre-existing tried and tested tasty ingredients - they incorporated the aural equivalent of fecal matter in their music!  

You and I appear to think much the same about this, but it continues to surprise me how many intelligent artists and listeners labour long and hard trying to reach a state wherein dog turds appear as gentian violets. I certainly cannot do it. Repeatedly listening to a scrambled fart because it is famous seems the aural equivalent of hitting myself on the head with a hammer for a couple of hours to see if it eventually stops hurting.

The approach, unfortunately, is ubiquitous. In response to a question about composition on another forum, a professional musician of some standing told the beginner that on no account should he simply create that which sounds good to him. Just what are we supposed to create then ? That which sounds horrible ? If he was right, then I am wasting my time with music and would be happier  working in the garden. At least flowers are beautiful.

[opus10no2]

One thing I would say is that many harmonies and sounds take time to acquire the taste for - just like the food analogy. Many chords that were once considered ugly are now considered beautiful - all those jazzy 7th 9th 11th chords, and many others.

We can give things a second and third try but for many pieces it just doesn't seem to work....they may appeal on a theoretic level, on a cerebral level, but if they don't appeal to our ears and our hearts then I wouldn't call them good music at all.

I hesitate to outright call anything absolute crap without giving it a listen or at least understanding that some people may be moved by it and enjoy the sounds...but so much work of the 20th century seemed to be all about novelty and always being something new.

I don't intend to insult modern composers but moreover empower more modern composers to feel comfortable writing tonal music, and to have a new perspective on greats like Rachmaninoff.

Any critic who couldn't see what an original voice he was in music, despite being romantic and tonal...didn't deserve a job as a critic in the first place.