All Activity

Soundishly, perfect orchestration, my friend. How well you know the piece and the instruments you used is obviously extraordinary. Continue working on this. This is great.

Hello Tristan: I have these glaring errors in there because I don't play the piano—and when I do, I only use virtual instruments. You are right about that octave; I hadn't considered that it might not be playable. As for those notes that appear to be marked as triplets, they are actually three eighth notes, though they do look like a triplet here. I didn't intend to have triplets there—nor could I have them—because I would otherwise be short an eighth note. Thanks again for your helpful tips.

I thank you very much for your vast explanations. Now I can understand much better what the people meant with their critics. This initially should be an job from my sync agent. This youtube song was the example. Wanted was something in this style. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8AAacIL3LM The track in the video has almost no melody. While the devoplemt of my piece I created a melody and I thougt with a melody in my piece it would sound much better.

Hi Tristan! Nice composition! I would say, you have a nice thematic idea. You could have progressed it, though, into d dur or perhaps c dur. As we can see here:. your writing is very messy, although using a notation software. You should know that in composition, you could always use marks such as simile. You also didn't have to keep emphasizing that it is piano and not something else like... Idk... fortississississississississississimo. As you can see, you have decided to make a triplet here at the start. Very creative, but, the problem is the notation. You need to have a 3 on the top of the triplet... Right? Adding on to my point, it doesn't even sound like a triplet, so why did you do like such? I am confused. Also, you shouldn't write ♩=120. Instead, write Italian. More fancy, you know. Write moderato. Write poco allegretto ma non troppo. (etc.). Moreover, some stuff are proving a second Rachmaninov, which is you, because of these.: yep. That is your left hand span... I am surprised. Nice one, welcome to YC, enjoy your time, see you later! -TristanTheTristan Composer

Just had a listen to it. I'm not sure if it's stimulating but I found it funny (in the good way) at times. I can get why it's called "noise": the piece ended, and youtube directly put "Studie 1" from Stockhausen next. I couldn't have told that it was a diferent piece if they were both presented in the same mp3. I would say this is a matter of finding your public. Value is relative, and subjective. There's always a non-zero chance that some may find your work (the one you submitted) interesting or even beautiful. In fact, you can prove this yourself by making something you may find most terrible and sharing it. Sooner or later, someone may appear and praise it. Keep following the path you like. Kind regards!

Thank you for your honest opinion. That is exactly what I wanted to hear. To me, if a piece is not found "interesting," it means it is no different from a mere mess—it is not a work that holds value for others. When I create a work, I don't necessarily have the conscious intent of making it for someone else; rather, I make it because it's fun, and I am satisfied with that aspect. However, I feel that can sometimes turn into a sort of self-indulgence. What I am clearly seeking is to create something that others find highly creative and stimulating. For example, Edgard Varèse’s Poème électronique is a work of so-called "noise," yet it is stimulating and incredibly imaginative to listen to. (Of course, I don't think for a moment that I belong in their lineage, but that is exactly what I am aiming for.) I believe I can only take pride in having created a "great" work—moving beyond simple self-satisfaction—when it possesses the kind of value that makes others feel it is worth listening to. In other words, I am talking about that specific talent. Even if I can create something I find interesting, if it holds no value for others, I feel I lack the talent—or perhaps the ability—to present that value. Of course, I don't think anyone's talent can be fully determined by a single work, but I simply wanted to ask as a point of reference. At least with this piece, I wasn't able to provide any value to the listener; therefore, I suppose it can be classified as a work of self-indulgence. Regardless, your perspective was extremely helpful! Thank you for your valuable input.

Hi Sera, welcome to the forums! Just as an advice, many of us like to read the sheet music in case there's any. Maybe it's not the case here? Did you use a DAW to make this directly in MIDI + VSTs? Hmmm. Still in the first mp3 you attached. I guess I should read these criticisms more in depth in order to see how much I would agree or disagree with them. Often, the definitions of what X or Y are depend widely on the person using them. I would be inclined to think that when somebody told you that there's "no melody" they tried to convey something a bit deeper than "there's absence of a melodic line". Maybe they themselves don't even know how any better way to tell you their thoughts, but again I am not sure since I did not read these comments myself. There's obviously a melody in the sense there's an horizontal line in the piano (and later, on the strings) that's intentionally put on top of the rest of the sound mix, and there is some motive repeating here and there but it is shadowed by the —I would say, evident— vertical design of the piece in one hand, and also by the repetitive nature of the piece itself, a repetition that does not rely on the melody but that is commanded by that vertical design. The block-ish simple 4-chord progression/wheel harmony (Em G Bm D, with ocassional variations G-> Am, Bm-> Eb), to me and in this very case, competes against the melody here, and successfully (to some of your critics disgrace) robs a good chunk of its prominence. Adding variations and ostinatos on top of or next to said melodic line does not help. On top of that, the dynamics that are not built by layering instruments/voices are in my opinion either very subtle or inexistent. All in all, I can get people saying: "there's no melody" as an oversimplification of "this piece lacks a strong melodic line leading it". In fact, the harmony itself leads (or restricts) the melody. As much as there's rhytmic movement in the upper voice in the piano, it always stays inside of each bar. The piece barely moves from that so what the brain ultimately gets is "| Things | Things | Things | Things |". The melody is not on top of that, but constrained to that rigid sub-structure. Your alternative three "melodies" suffer from that. You build vertically, vertical sub-structure commands over horizontal movements, and thus the melody you build doesn't escape and get the prominence it needs to be righteously called a "melody". This does not mean that any piece with these characteristics will have no distinguishable melody, but that this happens in this particular case. Let's stop a bit at the "it's just tinkling", I would not say that but I kind of get where this may come from too. Keeping in mind what I discussed in last paragraph, if you combine "melodic line not leading", "ostinatos & small variations" and we consider that the piano resorts to it's high register in order to make that melodic line more prominent, we get something that we could indeed call "piano tinkle". I would say it can be cantabile, but it can also feel easily forgettable because it again gets diluted by the things I have been pointing out in this message. But wait a minute: do you intend this piece to have a prominent melodic line to begin with? After 3-4 listenings, it strikes me as a piece with (strong?) influence of the style of L. Einaudi (and the likes) . I'm not a fan, but it's yet another way to build music and it doesn't neccesarily rely on a melodic line to move things forward. For certain purposes, you don't even want things to "move forward". You may want to create an "atmosphere", or simply something whose main source of movement &/or development is not concentrated in the melody. You do you. Finally: it doesn't strike me as a Ballade but I'm not sure if there's a clear defintion of that so no big deal. Did you yourself think: "I want to make a piece with a clear, distinguishable melody."? Just curious. Best regards, Daniel–Ø.

Hi Lithl, welcome to the forums! As an experiment, I'm sure it's been entertaining and enriching for you. For me, the result is just a noise crescendo, I don't find it interesting at all. The processes that lead to it may be, though. I don't think that what you did proves or disproves that you lack talent. From this alone it's impossible to tell. Talent for what exactly, though? What are you pursuing? Are the other contestants' works similar to yours? How important is it to you to provide value to the listener? Best regards, Daniel–Ø.

Really? That sounds like a very harsh critique. To be truthful, I think your work is good; it simply reflects your good style. Your melodies have a certain melancholic quality, yet they still feel energetic and full of hope—Specifically, in version 80, the first 27 seconds have a bit of a lonely, melancholic atmosphere. But starting with the note at 0:28, it feels as if the music begins to take a step forward with a sense of hope. It’s hard to put into words, but that’s the impression I get. Whether that was intentional or not, your music is capable of telling a story, and I think that’s great. I’m also interested to hear how others feel about it, not just me.

It's a German forum. They said things like:"There is no melody." "That's just tinkling." "I can't sing to this melody."

Could you tell me, for example, what kind of criticisms you received? Personally, I think it’s good overall!! If I had to point something out, I’d say the melodic phrasing feels a bit similar throughout, which makes the development feel a little thin. Among the new melodies, I really like measure 90. Personally, I thought it might be interesting to try swapping the left-hand accompaniment of 90 with something like what's in measure 96! By the way, if you don't mind, could you tell me the name of that forum? I’d love to take a look myself.

Thank you for your reply! I truly appreciate your very candid critique! Thank you. Personally, I intended for this piece to be weird, but as you pointed out, if that strangeness comes across as simply "dislike" rather than "interesting" or "stimulating," then the work cannot be considered successful. Thank you so much for such a valuable perspective. At the same time, I apologize for taking up your time.

A Main-Theme Bonus Track Teaser : [ Waltz-Meter ]

I don't like it. It sounds most times confused and weird.

A musical quote pertaining to Tchaikovsky incoming! It's from "The Misfits" by Colin Wilson: And if you've gotten this far, thanks for reading!

I’d appreciate any feedback on my improvisation. Also I’ve never composed a piece before how would I go about that? Do you guys record your improvisations and try to transcribe segments from them when they seem useful? May 9.mp3

Hellooo, I made this waltz as an attempt to approach music for pedagogic uses. I also tried to give it a 'funny' sound so this waltz uses a lot of dramatic/parodic gestures. I think it turned out pretty good and funny. Hope u like it!!!!! <3<3 ·<{:D Vals I.pdfVals I.mp3

This is cool I never hear something like this

Oh yeah, I think you are right. Thank you for teaching me.

This is just my Opinion......you don't have to agree with it............But maybe its best to base opinions on fact not fiction. GENRE | Music can be classified into GENRE | Disco-Rock-Classical-Folk : - what GENRE is your composition ? CATEGORIES | This concept identifies the difference between an "Apple from an Animal"........Music from Noise.

This is my Piano Composition No. 4. I hope you enjoy it! Feedback is always welcome! Piano Composition no.4.mp3

Here another example with text in Latin.

Thank you for your reply and honest thoughts. -Regarding your question Music is a work of sound. Therefore, as long as it is presented as a "work," it is created with some kind of purpose or intention, regardless of whether the sound itself is noise or not. In that sense, the difference between noise and music isn't about the sound itself; rather, it’s about whether that sound has been incorporated into the context of a “work.” If a sound has no intention behind it and is not presented in any form, it is simply noise. However, if it is presented by the creator—or even perceived as such by others—it has the potential to become music. Regarding SFX (Sound Effects), they are not the primary focus but rather a secondary element to the visuals. While they undoubtedly play a crucial role, whether SFX can stand alone as music depends on whether making them so is "meaningful." At the same time, I believe another essential factor is whether the work brings value to the creator or the audience—be it through being provocative, original, or inspiring. Even if you present a sound work with a specific intention, its true "greatness" is objectively evaluated by whether it is genuinely meaningful. That is exactly why I would like to hear your honest opinions on what you all think of this piece.

|Question |..... Whats the difference between " MUSIC vs NOISE " ?.....Is it possible to convert NOISE into MUSIC ? Your Sounds might be classed as : SFX | SOUND EFFECTS .

This is the best, Intellect! I cannot love it enough!