In Memorium: Robert K. Hoffman

I read in the paper today that the founding editor of the National Lampoon, one of my favorite magazines from way back when, has just passed away. In his New York Times obituary, we learn that after he made his money in publishing, he became a collector of fine art. In fact, he called art "the only effective method to travel and connect across time and space."

What an interesting concept! But isn't it true? Don't we connect to Mozart's age by hearing one of his symphonies? Don't we get a sense of the confusion and disarray of early 20th Century Europe by hearing a Schoenberg string quartet? And what about negro spirituals? How about the jazz age music of Cole Porter?

And I wonder: How is the music we compose today reflective of our "time and space"? Is classical music adequate? Or must we look to popular music as being more representative?

In 100 years, what music will be listened to to reflect the "time and space" of the early 2000s?

A Good Theory Website

Many, many times I have spoken to people who equate theory expertise with composition. This isn't exactly true, however. I always draw a comparison with fine art painting. You can go learn about color theory, squares, spheres, shading, etc, but this does not make you an artist. Same with music theory. Composers will find theory a bit easier than others, and it is good to have a solid grounding in theory. But don't confuse theory and composition.

Having said that, I came across this website which I like a lot! If you are looking to brush up on your theory, here you go: www.musictheory.net

Considering style

Here's something I've been wondering about lately.

As you develop your own style, is it good to be aware of it? For instance, I know that I like to write in a spare, economical style. I want to leave my audience wanting more; go in and give them a quick rush of musical feeling and then call the piece done. So, you could say that's one of the hallmarks of my own musical style. But is that a good thing for me to know?

Another example: instead of using traditional harmony, a cadence say, I like to give the ear a hook that takes the place of a cadence. Maybe instead of V-I I'll use a minor seventh on E "resolving" to a minor seventh on C#. Through repetition, the ear learns that this is the cadence. That's one way I approach harmony -- it's not traditional nor is it atonal. But is it good for me to have identified this aspect of my style?

One big positive is that, hey, I have a style! On the other hand, I don't want to get settled in my ways just yet. It's good to keep evolving. I do wonder about defining my "style".