All Activity

The text for this piece is often attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, who died in 1226, but the earliest known published version was much closer to our own time. It may have been written by Father Esther Bouquerel (1855-1923), who wrote much of the content for the small religious magazine in which it seems to have first appeared. A popular English version of this prayer is as follows: Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith. Where there is despair, hope. Where there is darkness, light. Where there is sadness, joy. O Lord, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console; to be understood, as to understand; to be loved, as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, It is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.

I've been going back over old files and refreshing the formatting and sound files so the scores look a bit less dated. This piece is from 2012.

This is fantastic, and I can only imagine it doesn't have more reviews because people like to be able to suggest something that should be improved upon, and this is perfect as it is. I agree with Henry that the 5/8 is an excellent fit here, partly because it rushes things along, and partly because it feels slightly off-balance, like a mad love affaire. Well played and well sung! Now I want to go look up some Jules Laforgue poetry. Are there other texts you particularly recommend?

Well, it's yielding excellent results. Keep going!!! Look forward to hearing more as your own style evolves.

Well, flattery will get you everywhere! I think the Mendelssohn/early romantic style is quite clear. That said, it DOES take some knowledge and a little skill even to copy! Thank you! I learned a ton in the approx 2 years it took to get it to this point, with some long breaks in between.... Despite the cost--and being grateful I could do it--it was a hugely benefical experience, from getting the right musicans together, learning about part preparation, doing a read-through, the recording session, and post-production concerns and what I need to be attentive to. I am committed to having the next live recording process go much smoother, including having ALL my music ready , and in a highly polished form! Thank you again! I worked really hard on it--it didn't just happen... I have corrections (I won't say "final") I want to make in my score, and some refinement yet to do as a follow up...

This sounds really nice - as if it's by one of the greats!!! It really stands out amongst recordings shared in this way. Congratulations on writing it and even more so on getting it professionally performed!!

Thanks for the analysis! I really felt more inspired specifically by Brahms and Rachmaninoff when composing this piece, but I never actually studied a Brahms work so I didn't know about the similarities in structure (perhaps only his clarinet sonata No. 2, which I performed in a recital). Anyways, I guess I should look into Brahms's coda developments, it seems quite interesting. I think you are correct, maybe I should try commenting on some of the other works here! I'll keep an eye on any new and interesting topics.

I learned something else. The numbers representing the chord transformations cannot go into the negatives, because doing so has a harsh effect. Here's the improved version of that song generated from my simple input melody:

One of my main goals is just to be the shoulders on which giants stand. Everything I discover about music, however small, will go on to inspire generation after generation to come, sending waves and waves of inspiration throughout the rest of history.

I believe I have found the main principle behind varying and selecting a variety of chord types rather than mainly just one as happened in many of my previous pieces from the program of mine. A short example. All I did was enter the simple melody and then, through trial and error, chose the chord types by inputting from a very limited selection of numbers representing different transformations of the input melody notes into a full chords.

Music is, like all, things modeled after the Trinity--a threefold difference within sameness. That's precisely what harmony is--first of all, primarily triadic (as there are only three broad pitch classes that can be simultaneously combined while achieving a truly consonant effect); second of all, it is a coordinated action by separate agents united under one will and purpose; third, a harmony is one thing with many--primarily, three--parts. We simultaneously hear it as one and as more than one. If it were just one, it would not be harmony; and if it were composed of things completely separate, it would not be harmony either. It is, like the Trinity, both at the same time.

So maybe you believe Chrsitianity much like Kierkegaard's way. Can you tell more how your religion relates to your program and the acoustical aspect of the music? I am really curious on that.

Not so much Hegel. Christianity, in my own highly mystical and unique brand, is the primary philosophical inspiration behind this program. I know not everyone agrees with the teachings of Christ, but there are million things in my life that point strongly and unambiguously to the truth of the religion. Christianity is written into the very fabric of the universe at all levels. And no, I'm not one of those naive Christians who believe everything they say at church. I have a lot of strong disagreements with common teachings in the religion. But I do think the religion is at its heart true, and it has served as a wellspring of inspiration for me.

Oh so how is your program related to Hegel's writing? I am quite interested in it to be honest.

Kudos to you for knowing who Hegel is. I'm a philosophy buff, so, unsurprisingly, I'm familiar with his teachings, as well. My love of philosophy is one of the major inspirations behind my design of this program.

Oh I would be very happy to see your music reach its final Hegelian Geist state! Keep going!!!!!!!!!!

I don't think the music is that great. I still have a long way to go. But I'm having some interesting and rather effective ideas. Keep in mind that I started designing this thing from scratch less than half a month ago. So obviously it hasn't attained anything approaching its final state. EDIT: My goal was to be able to take a simple melody and have this program do something elaborate with it, something that preserves the melody's governing role and its status as initiator and foundation. That's basically what I've been doing so far, with ever greater precision.

It's great you have a great confidence in your own works. For me personally I like your earlier music than recent music written from the program, as for me the earlier music sound more beautiful and have more varities than the recent ones when the timbre of those program music are a bit piercing to me. But that's personal and I'm sure you won't mind my very personal opinion, given how much you like your own music. Henry

I agree, the piece I posted most recently did have a grating sound. I took a slight misstep, although it's interesting that I was able to get that shivering sound consistently. It at least means I was onto some kind of principle behind sound, and I learned something from it. I'm using what is called a phasor to produce the sound. It is indeed a sawtooth wave, which is, yes, a grating sound. I intend to swap it out for something more organic, or at least pleasanter-sounding, but I haven't yet gotten around to doing that. The phasor object is what is provided ready-made in the programming language I'm using, so I've defaulted to it for now. Here's a piece I accidentally deleted and had to reupload. I like it even if you don't:

Like I said, I rarely listened to them all the way through for the reasons I cited, so my apologies if my experience of your sounds isn't complete. If you're happy with the progress you're making then by all means continue! I just thought you were posting your pieces here to receive feedback about how others experience what you produce. Nowhere did I say that you didn't know what you're talking about - I'm sure you're an expert on your own program and how you've learned to create sound using it. Do I understand why you would want to try to create music using this method or this particular grating saw-tooth wave sound? No, but maybe you do and as long as you do that's all that matters. But that's my experience of what you've presented.

Also, you're not correct that the music I've posted so far consists of purely parallel motion. It did have a fair lot of that for reasons I've already mentioned and corrected. But there were, in fact, several melodies moving independently in a number of the pieces I've posted. This is not a delusion on my part. The program I'm using tells me what notes are being used by each melody, so I know what I'm talking about.

Well I just clicked into the post to listen it, unawaring the volume and my ears really got hurt by it for real!! Those shivering sound is annoying and damaging my ears to be honest! I really don't know what your theory is to be honest, but I know my ears are hurting!! 🤪

I'm gradually improving the program. Obviously, it's not perfect. It's just getting better and better. As far as why I'm doing this, it's because I want to understand the nature of music. I don't care that AI can do a better job. That isn't the point of this endeavor.

I've been studying dissonance for the past hour, and I've come up with a theory that I think explains it very well. Here's a melodic fragment input into my program, where my theories are used to its advantage:

I wonder if you're aware that today's A.I. tools are already capable of creating contrapuntal works that give imo much better results than what you've presented here. The biggest drawback, as you mentioned is that your program only doubles the given melody in similar motion. Usually, counterpoint involves independent voices and one of the first and most important rules in creating independent voices is that you shouldn't double them for any substantial length of time at the same interval. Even 3rds and 6ths doubled for too long stop being independent and blend together into just one voice. Counterpoint would also involve the different voices moving in different independent rhythmic values and in contrary, oblique and similar motion. There is nothing contrapuntal about what you've presented in my opinion. Another issue is that your renditions are really grating on the ears and hard to listen to. Why do your renditions use sawtooth-wave synthesizer sounds? Even if you subscribe to the moog-synthesizer invention style of music, there are more palatable sounds available to you that you don't seem to use. I honestly haven't listened to any of your recent submissions all the way through because of this. I just can't listen to something that grating for it's full duration - and I don't understand how anyone could find anything about this beautiful. I hope you don't take this as a damning criticism, I'm just trying to describe my listening experience and put my reaction into words. Thanks for sharing though.