Nobody said that composers either have or will exhaust all possibilities; it's unlikely to happen. That's not even an issue here, especially since the majority of "all possibilities" will probably sound more like decomposition than composition. But composers who have similar backgrounds will often choose to do things in a similar and occasionally identical way. Listen to lots of Baroque or Classical period music and you will hear an enormous amount of stuff that sounds very, very similar, and occasionally identical. Listen to Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, and Richard Strauss, and you're going to hear sections (NOT totalities) in the later composers that could have come directly from the earlier; the four of them are almost a linear chain of influence and homage, but no one seems to doubt their originality and no one should. And please don't forget that there have been tens or hundreds of thousands of composers over the centuries. History is full of music that sounds like music by other composers by accident AND intent.I Really don't buy that. There are more than enough possibilities. If one really set out in a purely theoretical way, there would be no possible way to exhaust all musical material that one can create... Honestly, There are thousands of scales, hundreds of individual rhythmic cells, thousands of possible instrumental colors....GC wrote:After all, there are only so many possible combinations of notes, chords, harmonies, and rhythms available, and there are inevitably going to be identical passages, near misses, and similarities.
Similarity is not the result of having exhausted all musical material, it is the result of "Consciously" adhering to a style.
Sorry, but no. Many composers have acknowledged their influences, but only an idiot would admit to directly plagiarizing a contemporary source (old sources seem to be up for grabs, and openly attributing a piece to a theme by another composer seems to be a get-out-of-jail card). Many composers HAVE discussed their compositional methods. Some composers are taught by other composers and absorb ideas from them, and everyone knows where they came from. Whether they consciously or unconsciously imitate is sometimes easily definable, but a lot of it is wild-a$$ed guessing on the part of the listener, and many listeners are quick to attribute every similarity to poaching. Anyone can attribute imitation upon hearing, but that doesn't make it right.Again, I disagree. If I hear two passages and hear a strong resemblance, even if the composer doesn't acknowledge it I still feel free to associate. This point weakens your next point because many composers have refrained from specifically discussing composition method. Composers learn through imitation, they don't have to discuss it for us to understand that....GC wrote:Only they know what inspires them unless they specifically discuss it.
I agree. One thing about Williams that makes this kind of guesswork easy is that he goes deeply into whatever style influences him at the moment. But I think he's much into imitating style but rarely directly lifts recognizable melodies. I often feel that he hears a snatch of a melody from somewhere else and takes it to a better place than the original. I call that inspiration more than theft.I concur that "Stolen" or "steals" are thrown around too easily... I think, however, that it is more than safe to say that the influence of many composers can be traced in the music of Williams... The influence of Stravinsky, Holst, Prokofiev, etc.... is more readily audible in Williams than it is, let's say, in Schoenberg. (Many others fit that category)GC wrote: I do get really tired of listening to how Williams "steals" from other composers. Composers have borrowed, begged, and stolen from each other for centuries. It's a time-honored practice of the best and the worst.
And regarding the whole argument that so much pop music sounds alike (I'm not quoting what you said here, but I pretty much agree with you), I've never heard it seriously discussed that songs sound alike because they're running out of new things to play. There's so much imitation because it sells, it's safe, lazy, easy, or fits a certain form or style. Look at how many songs that have been written over a blues progression, or the ridiculous number of songs with guitar parts "Wild Thing" and "Louie Louie" in the '60's. Even with innovative guitarists, most of what they play sounds like other things they play or what other people play (especially after 50 years of listening to them). Pop, rock, and the like have become a box that it's hard to break out of, just like the compositional methods of the Classical and Baroque period. Just for different reasons.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but one of my favorites, Jerry Goldsmith, didn't do a lot of lifting that I was able to catch because he had a fairly specific personal style and usually stuck to it. I often felt that he was the most personally inventive of the late 20th century film scorers. There are a few scorers who are getting really big in films who are original voices within the mass of influences and styles, and more power to them. They're doing the best work out there now.
Again, no disrespect intended, same as you said. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
