Sinfonia Canadensis (Symphony no2 - first 3 movements)

Like I said, I'm sorry you find it "dull". I'll try and not hold back when I critique your pieces.

I was born in Alaska, then moved, then moved back. I feel like I am lucky to have experienced such a wonderful landscape, and even though you portrayed your country in this, I couldn't help but think of Alaska. Sorry I'm not advanced in music and don't know half the terms out there, but I speak on behalf of a listener moved by your work.

All 3 movements posted so far have been very picturesque, think they follow the progam well. I really can't say that I had a favorite among these, since they all portrayed something different. The first had a sense of heroism and nobleness, the second was very touching (I especially like how the big chords felt like wind), and the third had a bit of humor which was much appriciated.

You truly are a great composer, I'm suprised how some of the more knowledgeable reviewers are so bent up about the technical aspect. It seems like some did not listen to enjoy such a wonderful work you have given us. I enjoyed this immensely Qc, I kind of want to move to Canada now

Vince

I think this is a great peace and definitely needs to be played by a real orchestra. That is all, I don't think I should critique someone who has more experience than me.

Haha I agree with Maxx...

I feel I sometimes am commenting about someones piece and realize I have no idea what I really mean.

I'm stupid. :-P

Originally Posted by thatguy

You truly are a great composer, I'm suprised how some of the more knowledgeable reviewers are so bent up about the technical aspect. It seems like some did not listen to enjoy such a wonderful work you have given us. I enjoyed this immensely Qc, I kind of want to move to Canada now

Originally Posted by Maxx

That is all, I don't think I should critique someone who has more experience than me.

Originally Posted by Michael

Haha I agree with Maxx...

I feel I sometimes am commenting about someones piece and realize I have no idea what I really mean.

These are all very interesting comments, but just because someone has experience doesn't mean you can't have a differing opinion on their work. I commented and critiqued the work out of the desire to help, not to belligerently insult the piece on the whole.

Geez, you make one comment, you have ONE OPINION on ONE SPECIFIC ASPECT of a work and people think the world's coming to an end. Jesus, people, wake up! The way I understand how this forum works, people post for feedback... as in, what others like and what they don't like. I expressed my opinion, QC argued with me that my opinion was wrong, and I responded with further support of my opinion (i.e. using specific examples in his score).

I actually agree with most of you that his work is pretty damn good! I just think there are certain things he could fix and it would be better. But that's my opinion. He doesn't have to do anything based on my opinion alone, but at least he has it, true and honest as it may be, and he's better for it because he's not having sunshine blown up his butt. We do ourselves no favors by holding back our thoughts, especially when it is about music.

Sorry if my criticisms are too "technical" in nature... I was just trying to point to specific examples that illustrated my concerns with the piece. That is ALL.

Everyone, stop being so sensitive. None of us will learn anything if we're all going to be so defensive, even the more experienced composers. You post your music, and you get honest feedback meant to help you, no matter your age, your experience, or your position in life. That's what we do to help each other.

!

Originally Posted by Torsten Brandes

.... and so on...

I feel that you go far out on a limb. Finish a work and start with something new. A composer learns from his mistakes anyway. With every work he develops. If you really listen carefully to Oc´s work you might change your point of view. Just take a deep breath. ;-)

What limb? I assume you're trying to say that instead of complaining about a technical aspect of a composer's piece, accept a piece for what it is and suggest to the composer that they reconsider such a technical aspect in future work?

More or less, that's what I'm saying when I make comments. QC doesn't have to make such changes to THIS Symphony. If he feels my comments hold merit and he wants to change it, he can do so. I don't see how either scenario is going "far out on a limb." That's my critique. He can take it or leave it, but I've done what I hope will help him either with the work in question or in future works.

And if he decides not to reconsider the technical aspect and just compose whatever the hell he feels like composing, then there's nothing stopping him from doing that either. Though, when he posts his work for review, if someone comes along with a similar impression to my own of this technical issue in question, I would hope that they say something. I really don't plan on spending the time rehashing it every time he posts a new piece with linear contour issues.

I've considered the whole matter closed for some time, actually. What QC does with it is completely up to him, but at least he has the critique and something to think about, which I think is more valuable than, "Hey, good job! Keep up the good work!"

If that offends people, I have a simple solution. Get over it.

He's not the first composer I've encountered who seems to have a problem with taking criticism with grace and humility. We should all feel so fortunate to have someone tell us what doesn't work for them so we at least have something to think about either in the editing phase (which I was under the impression QC was in when I initially posted) or in beginning another composition.

And when I post my next piece (still a work in progress), I better have people telling me what they don't like about my work instead of blowing sunshine up my butt. It can only help even if people don't know how to handle it.

!

I think people need to cool down a tiny bit.

Simply because AntiAtonality didn't like the piece, or an aspect of the piece, doesn't really mean all that much. It's simply a reflection of how he sees music, and this piece in particular.

I've read his assessment of my music, I disagree wtih it. It doesn't mean he's wrong. He sees it that way. That's all. I don't think following his advice will in any way "improve" my composition. I see it that way. Period.

I think the only place where there's been any "problem" with accepting criticism, is that AA maybe feels his comment should carry more weight than I am giving it credit for. I've gone over this work with a number of people with far more impressive credentials than either his or mine, and his criticism just doesn't fall into any of the categories discussed with those people. So I can safely feel strongly that his criticism, while valid in his eyes, is just that: "valid in his eyes". Not mine.

Let's please not make a big thing out of this. Remember, people on this forum were quite willing to hand me my head on a platter over my clarinet sonata, a work that has been refered to as a masterpiece by people elsewhere (including the clarinetist performing it in september). Does it mean it's a masterpiece? I don't know, and I don't care. One day, history will tell. But I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over negative reviews. They are part and parcel of a composer's life.

If you can look at your work and STILL firmly believe that a critique is not valid, with absolutely no question, then you are the final arbiter. Well, maybe the penultimate arbiter. History will be the real final arbiter. More than likely, I'll be dead and gone by then.

!