on composing choral music

it's no secret that composers, even the greats, stole at least some ideas from somewhere else. some people even argue that there are no original ideas, only original interpretations of those ideas - and there's where good composers get their names. they know how to reinvent an idea or take something from someone else and make it their own, or to incorporate it into some new format. look at stravinsky's "firebird": there are tons of effects and orchestrations that could on first glance be rimsky-korsakov, but where you know its stravinsky is in how he employs it, the rhythmic sensabilities, the underlying harmonic content.

so why am I suddenly on this tangent?

so many younger choral composers today are trying to be either Eric Whitacre or Morten Lauridsen whose works are among the most performed choral literature today. both of them write vivid, moving music, full of emotion that is both exciting for audience and singer. each has their "signature" style. whitacre is known for his "whitacre chords", use of clusters, and thick chords - a somewhat chromatic style with a lot of dissonance that is somehow wholly approachable and understandable by the layman. laurdisen is known for flowing lines, with a delicate, almost floating sound. there's a lot of longing in his sound, as well as a lot of melody. again, there are tasteful, unexpected dissonances in his writing as well.

I keep on hearing works by younger composers for choir that basically sound like either whitacre or lauridsen took a shit and then gave it to a choir to sing. okay, that's unkind. it's more like they got really, really drunk and then decided that'd be the time to compose. it's hard not to be influenced by composers that are successful and also that one actually likes themselves, but if you want to sound like them, try to figure out why it works and then steal the idea, but then, most importantly, make it sound original! whitacre and lauridsen write great music because of two reasons: 1) they've managed to create their own sound through their own creativity and talent and 2) they know how to interpret a text. only through interpretation and dissection of a text can you actually set it to music. that means more than just knowing what the words mean, it implies knowing where to cadence, knowing what the consonants and vowels will sound like, knowing when the text wants to move and wants to settle. a good text can give a choral composer orchestration and tempo. mainly when I hear these whitacre/lauridsen wannabes, I just hear words set to pitch, using a bunch of effects. and it sounds bad.