ariston wrote:Serious mode: @fmr, it's really down to context. A word is just a word (say "compose" over and over for five minutes and see what happens). The context being: funny how all the music hacks of the past are "geniuses", who only produced "masterpieces". Learnèd texts that analyse classical tunes rhapsodise over the ingenuity of this motif here and that diminished fifth there, as if these were god-like drops of perfection. It elevates the entire thing to a place where it doesn't deserve to be.
Don't get me wrong: I can get very excited about music, but it's one thing to love it, and another to canonize it. Maybe what I'm trying to say can best be understood through this Buddhist anecdote:
A student says to his master:
"Master, isn't it true that Zen is a dewdrop forming on a budding flower?"
The master says: "Yes, that's true. A pity you had to speak it aloud."
I didn't quite follow you, but if that reference to "canonize" is addressed to me, you can't be more wrong. I often scandalized my fellows by saying that I don't find the majority of Mozart works very interesting, for example. And I definitely do not "canonize" anything, and the devotion I have towards what I consider "masterpieces" is the same no matter if they came from Bach or from Vangelis, for example. I never said that all pieces from the famous masters of the past are masterpieces, and I don't see where you got that idea from, but it's wrong. Besides, many music written in the past just remained in the past, and for a good reason. Unfortunately, we are exposed to all the trash done today, but the time will take care of wash everything that do not deserve to survive, that's for sure.
And, as you seem to be in the spirit, I am just saying that calling anything being composed nowadays "songs" is an anecdote, and there are no reasons to fear the word compositions, and composer. But you may use simply "music works", if that makes you feel more comfortable.