4 ms·

>> Why'd we have to compose music in a style of the past? > Because we like it. Nothing against that, but there seems to be a group of people who dismiss anyt

>> Why'd we have to compose music in a style of the past? > Because we like it. Nothing against that, but there seems to be a group of people who dismiss anything except classical music as if we lost the ability to make acceptable music today. I also like some styles more than others, but I'm not going to make generalizing statements about humanity's abilities due to my personal preferences. > Those tools are not our masters to impose us making different styles on us. They most probably do affect the style, just like how 16-color pixel graphics produces a different visual style than playstation-style polygons. And that's a good thing, more styles = more variety, there isn't some particular style of some particular era that's somehow better than others

xattt 2y ago
To add to your comment, music from that time was contemporary and reflected the needs and wants of the general population of the time. Forcing new composers to conform to what old people want from because tradition, damn it is a recipe for creative disaster.
- coldtea 2y ago
  >Forcing new composers to conform to what old people want from because tradition, damn it is a recipe for creative disaster. Is it? That's how music and culture was preserved and slowly enriched over millenia, from Gamelan music to masterpieces like Bach. I'd say forcing new music for the sake of it, especially to the degree and speed we do in the latter half of the 20th century onwards, leads to music following "fast fashion" like deappreciation, lack of understanding of its legacy, lack of leaving a legacy, spintering of audiences to individual echo bubbles, and ultimately commercial crap.