I compose only for the Gods. I don't care what mortals think about my music.

It's taken me 25 years to learn that I can only compose for myself (and my mental health, which seems to require the act of creation in order to avoid depression). When I started composing seriously around the age of 40, I desperately wanted the approval of others and was creatively crippled when I didn't get it; I simply stopped composing. When it became evident that I needed to compose in order to survive emotionally, I chose to compose for myself because it meant I could create work I could be proud of. No, I won't be "successful" financially or popularily in the corporate sense, but succumbing to the whims of my critics would require self-denial and -asphyxiation. The road to self-acceptance has been long and difficult, and I am proud to be writing for myself.

I compose only for myself. My music is too bad to be heard by audiences.

It's always been in engraved in me that one makes art to move people, whether in the direction you intended to or not, or whether or not you wanted to. If you ignore the audience, ignore those who would actually appreciate what you're doing, then you've basically failed in doing one of the main thing arts is supposed to do which is again, to move people.

Maybe a healthier attitude is to consider composition as a craft, like was common before romanticism arose in the 19th century. The carpenter does not make a chair to be enjoyed for posterity, and the luthier doesn't build a violin or a guitar to last for centuries. They do their craft to be enjoyed in the more immediate term; if someone buys your chair and enjoys and uses it now, you have accomplished your main objective. Of course, some furniture or instruments last for centuries and people pay an awful lot of money to acquire them, but that's a tiny minority. Most are discarded or destroyed a few decades later. And craftsmen know and expect that, but it doesn't stop them. And back to music, Bach probably never expected most of his cantatas to be performed more than once or twice. I'm sure he would have been very pleased if he knew that centuries later they would still be frequently heard in churches around the world, but it wasn't his main goal. So maybe a middle ground between composing for yourself, and composing as a desperate bid for lasting greatness, would be to compose for the now. And then, from that point of view, being forgotten after your death is not a failure at all. Romanticism brought with it two antithetical attitudes toward art: one is that art should be made for oneself, and the other is that art is a way to achieve lasting recognition. The quintessential romantic artist was conceived as a tortured soul who was torn between these two ideals. And then modernity came along and brought with it another attitude, that art should be directed to appeal to the vast masses. In more popular art which spawned whole industries the modernist attitude took hold, while in smaller circles (like classical music, jazz and the academy) the romantic ideal is dominant. But none of these attitudes is actually conductive, and none of them are realistic for most artists. So maybe a return to the older, incredibly ancient view is due.

"Pay no attention to what the critics say; there has never been a statue erected to a critic." --- Jean Sibelius

I am a young musician of 8 years and a composing beginner. This is an extremely profound argument for your point! This is not a outlook that comes up often or at all in the classical world as everyone wants to be next "greatest" which would, in turn, lead them to not be the "greatest". Humility and an awareness of the audience's role in your position as a composer (or performer in my case) is paramount to one's own success mentally and literally! Wonderful video!

What if it is true though? Like, I compose to my ear, what sounds good to me. I genuinely don’t care what happens to my stuff which is naturally hard to believe. However, I literally record and will listen to my stuff on the daily because it scratches certain itches in my head that other music doesn’t. That’s not to say Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Strauss, and even Jerry Lee Lewis and Tom Lehrer weren’t massive inspirations. Of course I love and listen to their music and I consider my music this weird boiled down fusion of them. So what of that? Should I still stop saying it? Or every time I do say it go to the lengths of explaining why I do every time?

I can understand the perspective taken here. I fundamentally disagree though. Great man history is not a great way to think about how talented individuals were. Of course Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms are great but it's not simply that they wrote "good" music that their art endures. It's the structures put in place that have students learn their pieces, the fact that there is a narrow standardized repertoire. There are countless composers who made great music and are rarely played because people aren't required to play them, they aren't in the wider lexicon (popular), or their pieces are almost entirely lost. Cultural tastes change and music is a culturally subjective art form. Making an appeal through objectivism by stating that composers of a high caliber only come around once in a while is the reason why composers live in the shadows of their predecessors. It's not factually accurate to say a certain composer is better than another. Not only is it an unhealthy way for an art form to exist but It's also not accurate (since it's culturally subjective). This is why people struggle to create and struggle to be acknowledged for their art. Art movements have always been more about the group of artists pushing a vision as opposed to one individual. Great music is not just handful of composers or only those that are played today. A look at how historically people thought about music of the past easily shows how these things are not set in stone. Just look at how Bach's music, which in his lifetime was antiquated, today is celebrated. Just because we think these are our great composers today doesn't mean it will stay that way. Acting like it is on the individual rather than the culture of the time is ridiculous and soul crushing for any creative. However, I do like your content so I'm not that mad. Keep doing what you do but I have to disagree with you on this one.

I've been smeared relentlessly by the the jealous. This is why I say it. I also feel that music is glory to the divine, and therefore the opinions of men are considered born only of protest.

I love the sentiment in this video, and I totally agree with you. It’s nice to hear someone actually say that you should care about what your audience thinks - and it’s surprisingly very rare to hear this important outlook. Who did the painting near the end of the person sitting on the bench in a park? So beautiful - would love to see more by this artist. Thanks.

I spent many years composing music without elaborate ideas because I was afraid of confusing and overwhelming the average listener, which completely blocked my creativity. And I mainly produce game music and beats. When I started composing again 'for myself,' I learned so much new and regained enjoyment in composing. That's why I don't understand your criticism. A composer or an artist should create their art for themselves because only then can they truly express what they like and find intrinsic motivation in it. When you compose for others, you slowly degrade until one day you have to question whether you even want to make music at all

composers say the darntest things

Thank you so much for saying this! In a completely different scene (Underground dance music) but this attitude is surprisingly common. So strange.

For me, I see how it could have been turned from "If no one else likes it, well at least I like it, so that'll keep me going" to forgetting about the "if"

Very timely effective pep talk!

Of course I care what my audience thinks, but my own thoughts are higher priority. It's more important that I like my own work. If I don't I have to recompose it, rearrange it, or just trash it entirely(my fugues have often ended up just being trashed because of this). Often I do like what I write though. What irks me more is when someone points out mistakes bar after bar with no positivity or even something along the lines of "I understand why you did it, but it's wrong and this is why." This usually happens with my arrangements of Beethoven, this bar by bar detail of what exactly is wrong, and while I don't necessarily mind detailed feedback, when it's in an overly negative tone as has happened with me many times, it makes me feel like a housecat surrounded by lions as I just try to explain my thoughts on it and it seems like they aren't listening to a single word I say. They say I'm too defensive when all I'm trying to do is calmly explain things. Ultimately, I ignore them after I get a negative response to my response because I don't want to start a war over the internet, much less in person, but if only those harsh people could see that they were being too harsh to me and stop being so harsh and start being more constructive, I would really appreciate that. At least I'm glad that this harshness has lessened in frequency, that's one of many signs that I have improved as an arranger and composer(I like to think of arranging as "Composing from a reference point" because it involves the same kind of thinking that writing a new piece does, just with the reference frame of the original piece instead of a new work, so one improves the other, they go hand in hand).

I don't interpret this in the same way. I do agree that saying this stems from an adaption to what you have heared aother people say and that is of course a way of making excuses for your composing music. For me, the big issue has been that some composers despise modern composers writing in old tonal or tradiaional styles. They might say that people would laugh at you for that. I have also heard "be yourself" or "maybe you should get to know how your own voice sounds" - but only from instrumentalists - never from composers! These statements together with the difficulties to develop a social network within the sphere of musical composition with respect to classical music made me stop composing for many, many years and I never felt happy about that. But the thing is that this is constructive criticism and this is definitely not criticism you can learn anything from, so in this case I think it is only healthy to adapt the attitude that you are writing for yourself. There is also another interpretation of "writing for yourslef" and that is making your everyday life work and to taking care of yourself mentally and "spiritually". That is what I tend to mean. I am autistic and not living in the same reality that most of the people arond me, since I am to a large exxtent isolated, don't study in a university and I have never had a job, shich are platforms that you are supposed to be a part of in our society. So ... Composing music in traditional styles is in itself to go outside what is expected by others socially. Few people are ready to meet you there! I have never had anything performed, but I also have to adapt to this reality. What are you writing for? A piece of chamber music is - at least for me - something you want the muscians themselves and a small intimate audience you know to love and enjoy - not the big audience. If you are writing canons for you local choir that music is of course meant to be sung be the people in the choir and for them to enjoy and to perform that music in a public concert would be absurd. If you, on the other hand writes, a piece for large orchestra, two soloists and a five voiced choir - that is obviously music you would want a large audience to embrace. BUT It may not happen in your life time. This is not to be arrogant - that is just reality! Most of your music will not be performed in your life time anowaym right? :) I will also add that - yes, of course you wnat other people to appreiciate your music - but, that doesn't have to be 300 people at the concert hall. I have had friends as well as people I barely know listen to my music on the playback on my computer and some of them are amazed and that counts for something for me! What I miss is my music being peformed by real musicians and not by a silly software. But if the audience where the same - a few dear friends and a couple of random people I barely know and they happend to like - that is fine for me. That IS the big audienced as far as I am concerend. So the formal stuff of getting publiching and your music set up and all of that I don't even count. There is nothing wrong with that, but what is wrong is if it only counts if you get there! That is just silly. I participaed in a theater performance a couple of years ago and one of my co-actors there had written two songs for the play. But we could here that in one of them he wasn't himself, but had just written the music that he thought would please other people and that worked! That is something that I could NEVER have done - not only because it would be an inner crime against the musical gods for me, but also literraly - I simply would have no clue at all how to do that! Maybe some persons get something out of doing that just for doing what is expectecd of them, I don't know?

This reminds me of Prince and his vault full of unpublished music. While we don't know if he intended to release this music prior to his death, one can't help but wonder if the music was only for his personal pleasure, not to be shared or recorded...

"I don't write program music. My music is absolute." So said most composers. A few composers, such as Berlioz, were exceptions who embraced the idea of program music, that is, music that tells a story or describes a scene. If it were my music, I'd say "Sure, make up any program you like. Whatever."

Art is a social and cultural concept, and there is not such a thing as "individual culture"; culture is made by people and art NEEDS culture to be created, developed and appreciated. I think one of the most important elements in art is it's capacity of being shared with others, with the purpose of enriching the personalities and intellect of others; why compose/create something that give a voice to the most deep of the human passions if there's no one to experience those passions? How can you inciting catharsis if there's anyone to experience it? Anton Reicha was one of the most innovative composers of his generation but he was not interesting in searching for performances and publications. What was the result? Not only his works fell into oblivion (except for the wind quintets) but also there's not have been a complete catalogue of his works, many are only in writing form or lost. As much as I can speak of his underappreciated greatness he himself plot against his legacy. Great video, this is the first one of you I see, it's great we share the same view in regards of this behaviour.

I totally agree with you 😌as a composer I would extremely be happy if my music being appreciated by the audience.. Music is for sharing as I believe 🤗

Thanks for making this, it opened my mind to the composers intentions when they create. I wonder if they knew their music would be appreciated now. Maybe their confidence came from their knowledge of how it would seem to the future mind.

One thing I’ve been thinking about lately is treating my music as an act of service to my audience.

[Edit: minor grammar fixes and addition of 1 sentence] Thank you for the video! There are many points here that I believe many career artists of all types should consider if they want to be successful (esp. the stereotypical "publicly arrogant full-of-themselves artists" stating they are the "only one" who're forward thinking; these people gives others a bad name). That being said, I cannot help but write that I deeply sympathize with some aspect of those doing art "for oneself". One of the comments reads: [Art is a social and cultural concept, and there is not such a thing as "individual culture"]. I must respectfully disagree with certain aspects of this statement. While culture can only be sustained as a social concept, the definition of art has changed so much over the ages that I personally believe art (and the concept of beauty in a broader sense) can no longer be defined solely as a product of cultural phenomenon. To quote a famous question: "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Or to rephrase: if you have no audience, is your music meaningless? Is your art worthless? Glenn Gould was quoted as "[I] detests audiences, not in their individual components but en mass" (source: watch?v=1nZTgAGSajA) and quit as a concert pianist in his 30's. He was uncomfortable with audiences and made little effort to make any kind of human relationship in his life, both personal and professional musicians with whom he could talk about music with. There are many writers whose literary works (esp. diaries and poems) were revealed posthumously, one of the most famous being [The Diary of Anne Frank] that made Anne Frank into a well known writer after her death. Chopin was generally a very personal man, did not perform for large concerts and was well known for his snobbishness, reacting to criticism or changes to his music with tartness. He once even said of his friend Liszt to "compose for yourself instead of crawling into other people's composition like a pig into a garden" (source: The Legacy of Chopin, Jan Holcman) when he improvised many added notes to his compositions. Now, this is not to say that anyone should disrespect any person for any reason, or to use "the audiences are just stupid masses, ignorant of beauty" as a scapegoat of an argument against any criticism. However, I would like to point out that art can exist in a vacuum, that some do enjoy their form of art purely for themselves, because they enjoy what they do irregardless of what others think; what the video essayist has described as "a hermit" (9:08). Maybe it's just a way to privately express themselves Or perhaps they are highly introverted individuals, possibly with social anxiety. It is in my personal belief that there are many of these hermits under the surface. Will they be "discovered" by others, possibly years after their death? Who knows. The video essayist states "the process of composing only truly ends the moment it's offered to others to be heard. That's the whole point in the end, isn't it? We compose so that the music can be heard by others..." (9:03) This along with every other statements in this video is absolutely true for all professionals of any form and caliber. But if one is merely a hobbyist who understands that, by privately enjoying their art free of any audiences and criticism they will likely not reach the level of perfection that professionals enjoy, and is satisfied with this fact, I think it is perfectly a viable option. Maybe even desirable. I'm sorry if this comment came off as aggressive and off the track, but I felt strongly about this topic. I've been playing the piano as a hobby for about 16 years (still not any good by any measure). During my teens I've seriously thought about pursuing a profession as a pianist. I've been asked to perform for small concerts, even enjoyed some of them. The reason why I eventually decided against being a pianist is because I found I enjoy music much more as an intimate, personal exercise of emotional expression. (It probably didn't help that everyone after my first piano teacher (who was an amazing pianist who helped me to love music), was essentially "prepping" me for "passing an exam", with a very "Asian competitiveness" and strict mindset which made me quit lessons immediately and never had any lessons since) I have done manual labor as a job (before the virus) and a few hand injuries over the years means I can no longer play notes as evenly as I could before (which I found esp. vexing when playing Schubert's impromptu no. 3 and Chopin's harp etude, which I have fond memories of). But despite all that I still very much enjoy playing music as an intimate, private experience.

There are people who genuinely write for themselves, but those pieces are never heard by anyone. Which is fine. No problem with people who accurately describe themselves. But composers who make such a specific statement of intent, and don't follow through, are simply dishonest people. Whether they are lying to themselves as well as the audience, that's unfortunately the only distinction left to make.

"I don't care what other people think about my music." - even me, as a Composer nobody listens my own works. (or like that.) Classical Music is hardly to explain to other people, especially the stereotypes. I'll leave those.

Lets goooo!!

What movie is the visual from?

What piece is playing at 5:33

Couldnt agree more🙂

I got so lambasted at a composers' forum when I mentioned that I think about the audience when writing music! One argument is that you can't anticipate how people will react to music (which is bullshit).

👌

This video was made by a disenchanted artist

You haven’t given a good reason why pleasing others should be a goal. Art is far more personal than it is communal. And far more subjective. For example this channel tends to talk about the greatness and genius of Mozart and Schubert when I’d rather listen to James Brown or Jimi Hendrix. Hal Galper says the art a person likes is more of a statement about the person’s own sense of style than it is a statement about the creator of said art which is good because this is exactly how style is developed should that person be come involved in the arts.

I disagree with the thesis of this video.

I think artist who indulge in this kind of behaviours are hypersensitive brats, they think that the process of being an artist should be as comfortable and ideal as it could be, avoiding struggle and conflict. That's not how life work, not only pain is sometimes the greatest of all teachers, but also if you don't have conflicts you don't move on, you remain static in your comfort zone and you will end up stagnated. Audiences can also be wrong, lacking appreciation or even be complete philistines but that doesn't exempt any artists to also be wrong and deliver bad works; no audience or critics are obliged to like you, being appreciated is an accomplishment, not a right. Artist who shout "I only compose for myself" are just succumbing to reality, they are not dominating it, they are being passives and conformists, because for they that's better that confronting the conflicting reality. That's my friends, is the mentality of a loser. Sorry if my comment is so harsh, but that's how it is.

Deeply insane to mention Shostakovich "taking in criticism to improve his output" when the criticism in case was made by Stalin himself and he was afraid to die because of it. Hard to trust anything else you say in your videos.

First!

Disagree.