Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/21/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Here is a little impromptu I wrote a few weeks ago. What do you think ?
  2. 2 points
    Hi everyone, I've been composing music for 3,5 years, but it was not until recently I decided to start uploading my music to the internet. I've never received any musical education, I had to educate myself. The first piece I decided to upload is the "Sonata for Viola and Orchestra". Please note, that even though it says sonata in the title, I wasn't sticking to any particular composition form. I would appreciate any feedback you can give me on both my orchestration and composition and your thoughts in general. For the story behind the piece, you can check the description of the video attached here. My idea behind this composition was as follows: The motif that represents life gets introduced in the first part of the composition in a major key (0:00-0:56). Then the piece switches to a minor key and a "loss" motif start playing by a solo viola, representing the losses during the war. After the second repetition of the motif (1:00-2:24), the life motif comes back now in a minor key representing that life has changed for the worse (2:24-3:15). The loss motif is then repeated again and the piece concludes on an unstable minor add9 chord to show the uncertainty of the situation (3:15-4:30). The piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4jGyzvWlmY&lc=z221wrhqgxznjvopt04t1aokgbir4xpajzdb5agsljhlrk0h00410 The score is attached here Edit: Uploaded the piece here as well. For the history behind it, you should still check the link Edit 2: Replaced the previous pdf file with the new one, since I found some mistakes (had incorrect crescendo markings around bars 10-11)
  3. 2 points
    Hello Guys, I'd like to introduce my latest symphonic track, Monarch Butterflies. What do you think?
  4. 2 points
    You said a lot of stuff here, but I'm going to mainly focus on this in my post. Despite the tortured wishes of people like Jacob Collier, this isn't a thing. If you take a piece of music that was in C minor, for piano, and then perform it up one whole step, it doesn't suddenly sound "more or less X". Especially if the audience is not intimately familiar with the piece. Specifically because the "X" is entirely subjective and the description only makes sense within your own mind. Key changes within a piece only seem to create some sort of emotional effect because they contrast what came before it. This effect is often more pronounced because this often accompanies a change in the rhythm, or other established norms in the piece up until then. "Key" by definition, is entirely relative because intervals are relative. There are plenty of good reasons to transpose an existing work when you're adapting it for a different ensemble apart from that which it was originally written. Ranges, ease of playing, and timbrel differences. For example, if the original key of X melody line was in a key that would be most suited to the lower range of the oboe, then you should probably transpose it up because it's probably going to sound terrible in the low register. Tin whistles? You're going to want to stay in either E minor or D major on most whistles not just so you don't have to half-hole, but because the upper range is tough on the ears after not-too-long and requires more airflow. Generally speaking, if you can shift around the key, and run into no timbrel, play-ability or range issues, then it doesn't actually matter if you've transposed it or not. Because this whole "X key sounds more X than Y key" is nonsense.
  5. 1 point
    Young Composers Fall 2019 Competition: "Poor Form" Welcome to "Poor Form", a competition dedicated to stimulating creativity by way of thematic transformation. Liszt was a huge fan of using this concept; an opening thought would be copied, but used in wildly new ways to preserve unity despite deviating from it! The Renaissance similarly used the "headmotto mass", where each portion of the Ordinary Mass would begin with the same material, before breaking off into different forms of counterpoint. This season, we're going to celebrate originality in the most literal way possible: it's what you do with it that matters. You're going to see a lot of rules, but that's only because this concept is pretty different; we're trying to make it as creatively free as possible! Topic: Compose a small suite of 4-6 short pieces, each beginning with the same music, then deviating away from it seamlessly into new styles, developments, and orchestrations. Composition Rules... ...regarding the shared material: The shared material between all movement must be at least 5% of your movement in terms of performance time. For example, a movement of 2 minutes, must have at least 6 seconds of shared material. Shared material need not be at the same tempo between movements. Shared material must be identical in most ways; it is up to composer discretion what this means, but a hard rule is that not only the melody/theme can be used each movement. The closer the shared material is to being identical between movements, the better. Entries for solo monophonic instrument (i.e. not harp, piano, organ) are extra-encouraged to have shared material be identical. Shared material must be found at the beginning of each movement, and should not reprise mid-movement, with exception of perhaps the final movement. Shared material and new material must sound different, while still sounding appropriate. New material must feel like a natural progression from shared material. The intent is to show composer inventiveness and skill in developing themes and ideas. ...regarding the movement form: Suites must have a final movement in some way combining the branching processes of the other movements. This movement is included in your movement count. The final movement should not be a restatement of the other movements/processes linearly, but a blend of some sort. However, not all processes need to be blended all at once. Basically, make it a mashup of some sort. Movements, bar the final one, may not exceed 5 minutes in performance time length. Movements must be at least 1 minute long. Shared and new material in movements should transition seamlessly between each other. Eligibility: *You must be a member of the Young Composers forum in order to enter. Sign ups will be in the comments below. *There will again be no limits regarding instrumentation. *You must have a minimum of 4 movements in your piece, including the final blend variation. *You must have some sort of audio rendition accompanying your work. *You must present a score of your music for judging regarding proper handling of musical convention. *If you volunteer to be a judge, you may not enter as a contest participant. *Note: A written component is not required for this competition. The music should speak for itself this time. Scoring: Clear and inventive deviation from the shared material between movements, all with an obviously repeated introduction. /20 A conclusive and satisfying, yet creatively combined final movement. /10 A good, semi-professional score and audio rendition of the work. /10 Sound and realistic instrumentation and orchestration. /10 TOTAL: /50 Deadlines: Deadline for entrant intent: October 31st Deadline for entrant's submissions: November 15th Deadline for judge responses: December 1st Competition results: by December 8th. Entry Notes: Please list your interest to compete by replying to this thread below in the comments. Please note if you are applying as a PARTICIPANT or a JUDGE. I will be updating this list for participants as we go. However, entry into the competition is a commitment. While we would love to have as many interested participants as possible, not entering is better than committing, then dropping. This competition is a little more laid back to encourage more entries! A separate topic for submissions will be available at the end of the entrant application period. Note: Judges must be able to provide ample feedback on all 4 categories of scoring as well as provide a numerical score in each. Minimum 1-2 paragraphs per criteria. Participants: isuckatcomposing Noah Brode Tónkskáld KJthesleepdeprived Gustav Johnson bkho HoYin Cheung J.Santos Judges: Monarcheon Luis Hernández
  6. 1 point
    This is a peaceful nocturne/ballad that gets continuously interrupted by stormy winds and dancing tangents. It's dramatic and heartfelt. Rushed and calm. This piece had two completely different versions written down before I decided to combine both of them into one, since I liked both. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGYNz7Mo-ow
  7. 1 point
    Short prelude I wrote on a theme I got while improvising. Written: July 31, 2019
  8. 1 point
    Here is my new symphonic movement in BbM with a romantic character. Maybe in the future I can include it as a middle movement of a three-movements symphony. It's the longest movement I ever composed and the first time I use an English horn in a composition, so I've been experimenting some sound combinations (unison/octaves) of the E. Horn with Bassoon, Oboe and Frensh Horn. I like its sound and since it has a middle register, it can double many orchestral instruments. I'm pretty new in that kind of long compositions, so any feedbacks are wellcome.
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
    Hello musician friends, few weeks ago I created this little piece, i just wanted to have a little feedback on it, if you have a little time ! Don't hesitate to give your advices on what can be improved ! I started composing orchestral cinematic music 1 year ago thanks for listening if you do, and have a nice day !
  11. 1 point
    Hello everybody. We've got a new song out called ''Desperate''. We tried to give an 80's feel to it, acoustic ballad type of thing. Hope you guys enjoy it. ======================================= My previous: https://www.youngcomposers.com/t35836/new-sound-delicious-grace/ https://www.youngcomposers.com/t37009/delicious-grace-the-boy-from-memphis/ https://www.youngcomposers.com/t37305/delicious-grace-chaos-and-shame/ https://www.youngcomposers.com/t37476/delicious-grace-nocturnal/ https://www.youngcomposers.com/t37761/delicious-grace-queen-of-england/
  12. 1 point
    I think @AngelCityOutlaw and @Jean Szulc make good points. I can't speak for every composer, but I'd wager the vast majority of compositions are in the specific key they're in because that's simply how the composer "heard" it in his/her head. However, I would agree that changing the key is compromising the composer's original "intent" of the piece. Whether that's good or bad I suppose is up to each person to decide. I don't exactly know what you mean by this. Almost everyone would stay in the original key unless the instruments being arranged for can't play certain notes in the original. At that point, I would think physical limitations would take precedence over personal preference. Or I would question whether the instruments being arranged for are a good choice to begin with. Yes, and by that same token, it could make things easier (which is why many beginner piano books contain easy transpositions of songs in more "difficult" keys). Key signatures are arbitrary things, anyway. If everyone learned F# major when they first started learning to read music, then C major would be the difficult key. And besides, harder ≠ impossible. That's why there are such things as rehearsals. From previous interactions on this forum, I know this is important to you. @AngelCityOutlaw has already tackled this one, though. There is no "periodic table of keys" that links an emotional state to each Western key signature. That would reduce music down to a science, where all a composer would have to do is string together a bunch of keys to give the emotion s/he wants. In reality, it's much more nuanced than that... because, as mentioned previously, it's all about the relative intervals of the music. Ultimately, it's your decision whether to transpose or not. I don't think your arguments are very sound as to why you shouldn't transpose, but I think they're moot, anyway. If you don't want to transpose, then you don't have to. No explanation needed.
  13. 1 point
    That's how ratios work. They divide and reduce like fractions do. It's just basic math. 8:12 divide both sides by 4, you get 2:3, perfect fifth. 10:15 divide both sides by 5 you get 2:3, perfect fifth. The fact that they're off by a factor of 4 or 5 doesn't mean anything as far as the ratios are concerned. It's just a bigger form of 2:3. They need to be that big so that the other intervals also work with it.
  14. 1 point
    They are represented. They're just multiplied by a certain factor to preserve the relationship between the two. 2:3, the perfect fifth is equal to 8:12 and 10:15. No. They're all individual and considered together at the same time.
  15. 1 point
    @Gustav Johnson Take a look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_form There are many examples of cyclic form if you consider it widely. I mean, using and recycling material from one part to the others, not strictly at the beginning of each part. That ancient mass is a good example of what was asked here. I suppose the intention is to "limit" the resources and make it something interesting.
  16. 1 point
    and @Tónskáld I don't think anyone's really used to writing anything like this, even me, so judges are definitely gonna be more lenient with things regarding form! You're right: it is not a theme in variations. Gustav, you're in the right headspace; your example would definitely be a good example of what we're going for.
  17. 1 point
    Can't really help - that's a good start, innit? because I can't see how the term "vector" fits in (which traditionally is an attribute/movement having magnitude and specific direction). It seems to have been borrowed by all kinds of things though to mean something different and lend them an air of authority. I've been composing music for some time, well aware of intervals and their inversions (how can one not be?!) but never had to classify them or consider more of a trajectory except in movement to the next (musical) event: chord? note? But there's a department somewhere that comes up with this sort of minutiae and no doubt there'll be students of same who can answer your question and explain exactly why "vector" to me. (I believe I need enough theory to do what I have to do compositionally, no more!)
  18. 1 point
    Well, folks, I'm very pleased to offer you the final installment of Íslensk svíta! This one is called "Lofsálmur," which means "hymn." It's a kind of song without words, and brings together a few themes from the other movements (if you look closely 😜). It represents the simple, glorious joys of that North Atlantic island. This movement begins easily and quietly, then moves through various dark passages before the main theme is realized near the end. Then the piece ends as simply as it began. I find this finale to be extremely moving, and I hope you all enjoy it as much as I do! As always, I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions! And... it feels great to finally be done with this suite! 😅
  19. 1 point
    Maybe it's just me, but you seem to use 7/4 time in a very natural, lyrical way. Usually this tempo sticks out like a sore thumb for me, but I don't think I would have even noticed if I wasn't looking at the score. Interesting. I like the way that the previous piece hinted at the maestoso here. In the piece before this one, there was this short climax at its grandiose theme, but here, it's like it gets a chance to be further elaborated on in this "remix" of all the previous pieces that came before it. It's a satisfying climax! And the ending C Major chord is also really satisfying and feels truly "final." (I think my favorite part are the 2 bars labelled martellato soon after the quasi cadenza, those chords are positively delicious!) I'm looking for things to critique, but I just don't see anything to criticize, personally. I just really like this suite, and your way of writing. What can I say? I'm sure your growth as a composer will come naturally with more writing, anyway, as all composers do. I hope at some point you can get a live recording of this music, because the only thing holding it back is the MIDI performance. Thanks for sharing with us! :D
  20. 1 point
    I think this is wonderful, particularly in context with the set. The jagged edges of some of the passages is a nice contrast to the more smooth passages in the previous works. But I appreciate the subtlety and restraint. The piece has jagged moments that set it apart, but it still has its own smooth passages that give it a certain contour. I especially like the use of the unisons, like at mss. 59-69, for example. It contains the same harmonic feel, and even though it still sounds a little "rough", it comes off as more gentle than other parts in the piece. And the animato is just a beautiful passage. Great work! :D
  21. 1 point
    I think you have to consider the background. In no tonal music, tritones are considered neutral. If the background is consonant it's dissonante and vice versa. I also thing the most dissonant tetracord is C-C#-D-Eb
  22. 1 point
    I don't know about that. My point was whenever a chord is played all of the ratios found in it (much like finding an interval vector) are heard and applied to your ear, the consonance and dissonance don't much matter. Same goes with inverted, chords– the ratios would just be different, but you'd still hear all of them.
  23. 1 point
    This is my first ever 'proper' piece for orchestra. It was going to be performed by a student orchestra back home, but the conductor has postponed on me twice already and I suspect it might not ever get played, which is a shame. It started off with the initial melody, which appeared in my head one day and stayed there for a few weeks until I finally got it down on the score. I always intended the piece to start off light and get darker as the piece progressed, although I never had any idea what the actual structure was going to be until I was almost at the end. In a way, the piece is kind of representative of aspects of my personality. This piece features a lot of the harmonic and colour-related ideas that I've been playing around with during this last year of my master's degree. It was also my first ever serious attempt at writing for a string section, which turned out to be harder than I thought - a lot of the feedback I got from my tutor as I was writing this piece was on how low I was writing the violins and violas, because I think I was subconsciously treating them like winds. I think I managed to fix a lot of those issues by the end though. Overall, writing for orchestra isn't something that appeals to me a lot right now, probably because I'm just not used to it, but that might change as my career (hopefully) progresses.
  24. 1 point
    @Seery, it's both. Let's take a look at the ∆7 chord. 8:10:12:15 = C E G B All of the intervals related to C make sense. 10:8 = 5:4 which is a major third. That checks out because C to E is a major third. 12:8 = 3:2 which is a perfect fifth. That checks out because C to G is a perfect fifth. 15:8 = 15:8 which is a major seventh. That checks out because C to B is a major seventh. HOWEVER: All of the inner intervals also make sense. 12:10 = 6:5, which is a minor third. That makes sense because E to G is a minor third. 15:10 = 3:2, which is a perfect fifth. That makes sense because E to B is a perfect fifth. 15:12 = 5:4, which is a major third. That makes sense because G to B is a major third. So when you play a chord (C∆7, specifically), you hear ALL of those relationships at the same time. It is both all notes relative to the root and a note-to-note basis at the same time.
  25. 1 point
    Basically. It's a little more nuanced, but in this case it works. [0123], which is C, C#, D, D# and (0123) are slightly different. Cents are even more weird to think about it. In pitch class space only, just think about intervals between notes, ratios for simple relationships, if you must. Makes it simpler unless you're utilizing the harmonic series for compositional effect. What? I'm saying the major seventh chord's ratios are 8:10:12:15. In any given ratio between two of those numbers you get the correct ratio for that interval specifically. i.e. 10:15 reduces to 3:2 as does 12:8. They're both perfect 5ths, which makes sense, because both E to be and C to G are perfect fifths. That's not two processes, it's just one concise ratio, despite having multiple internal relationships.
  26. 1 point
    No, you didn't. Those three intervals are not the most dissonant if you wanted to make the most dissonant tetrachord. It would be Forte: 4-1, (0123). I just don't see why you, in your premise, think that (0137) is going to be more dissonant, especially considering it has an even interval class vector, while (0123) has a more left-heavy vector. In other words, I don't agree with your premise that the most dissonant tetrachord is one that has multiple different types of dissonances in it. You'll notice that (0137) is just the major triad (037) with an added minor second (1), so of course it isn't going to be the most dissonant, even when all bunched up. This whole ratio business gets really useless if you're considering all of this in equal temperament. In equal temperament, the perfect fifth is not 3:2. That's what I'm saying. I don't see why in your initial argument you claimed you had found the most dissonant chord which is why I was calling you out for stopping at 4 notes.
  27. 1 point
    Why did you stop at three? D is the inversion of A# when working in equal-tempered pitch classes. In other words, both notes are a whole step away from C. It depends on the type of music you're writing. In jazz, you'd base things on the primary or secondary roots. In early atonal music, it could be either. In Renaissance music, both matter. Both, technically. When you play a major triad (C E G) the ratio is 4:5:6. Major third ratio is 5:4 and minor third ratio is 6:5. 6:4 is a perfect fifth. Major seventh chord (C E G B), you get 8:10:12:15. 8:10 = 4:5. 10:12 = 5:6. 12:15 = 4:5. The major seventh interval from bottom to top is 8:15. All of the ratios matter, that's what makes them ratios.
  28. 1 point
    A new piece. Exploring the use of notes in complexity and sparseness
  29. 1 point
    Hello musician friends ! I'm all new on that forum, and I decided to share with you this little composition of mine which is orchestral with a bit of metal. I'm not very experienced as a composer since I started composing orchestral music 1year ago, only by ear and without any musical theory. ...And I started composing on Fl Studio 5 months ago. I hope you will like it, and do not hesitate to tell me what is good and what is not in my music ! I wish you all a nice day !
  30. 1 point
    @Jean Szulc Hey Jean! Thank you! I just checked out some songs from infancia, and what an eccentric composer, its jazzy/pop/classical. Its playful but jarring sometimes and melancholic sometimes. Always skillful. I gotta share! Link is below for anyone who happens on this thread and wants to check him out. Three songs from Infancia played live with his group. I'd love to compose and play like him one day
  31. 1 point
    @Tónskáld Thank you so much for listening and your input! You've cleared up some fog for me, especially about the key and the ambiguous sound. It's interesting, the tonic and the subdominant maj7s share the first and third degree notes. And the tonic is the fifth degree of whatever the 4th degree is. I think I can use this in the future. You're right about m.48-49, I'll try it sustaining an f# an octave higher. Thanks again! 😄
  32. 1 point
    Nice little thing here, that flows into itself rather well, despite being sectioned by standard form. The stops didn't get to me so much as Eb9 with a focus on the 9th did. I know it's part of your main progression but it always felt a little odd to me for some reason; perhaps it's the predominant function being accented as though it had dominant function, but I'm not sure.
  33. 1 point
    m. 47 - The double E# in a row will take a very steady hand to not emphasize both and sound awkward. I would pick one to emphasize, but that's just me. m. 81 - the way you have the arpeggio written is a little strange, since the notational contour is one-directional but there's a note that goes down. Overall, I think this is a lovely piece. Great mixed sonorities reminiscent of Debussy's good ol' underwater cathedral. If I had one formal complaint it would be that the beginning kinda takes a while to get going. Establishing themes is great and in a sort of hymn style it makes some sort of sense, purely as a listener and not a theorist I found it a little start-stoppy. As soon as you start going, however, everything flows beautifully.
  34. 1 point
    Why, thank you so much, Jean! Your kind words mean a great deal to me! I've really been impressed with this forum, as well. I waited until my 30's to start putting myself out there as a composer, and this forum has been a godsend in that regard. I've gotten lots of feedback from fellow composer whom I admire (yourself included), plus I get exposed to great music I otherwise would have missed! I'm very glad communities such as this exist! Again, I appreciate your humbling remarks. Regards, Jordan.
  35. 1 point
    Hey! I just find this piece very enjoyable! I'd recomend listening to Egberto Gismonti as your style reminded me of some of his pieces. He's a Brazilian composer pianist and guitarist, and I'd recomend his album "Infância". I believe its available at spotify, apple music, deezer, etc. Might be great inspiration for your next pieces. Best of luck!
  36. 1 point
    Hi, Em! This was a great melancholic piece and I enjoyed listening to it! It seems to me you start the piece in A major and end it in D major, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. You tend to "color" your major triads (at least the tonic and subdominant) as maj7 chords, so this piece never seems to have a home key—it sort of walks in the neighborhood of A/D major and their relative minors. I like it when songs have this ambiguity! The repetition didn't bother me, as I don't think you were going for a strictly classical feel. To me, it sounded like a pop/classical hybrid—maybe even something from a movie—so the repeated phrases seemed to belong. I will mention a troubling bar or two from the score, if that's ok. In m48-49 you have the RH playing a sustained F# while the LH is supposed to hit that same note a few times, too. This, of course, won't be playable, so that passage may need to be adjusted. I think you definitely have talent as a composer! Your musical form will become more structured the more you compose. Keep up the good work!
  37. 1 point
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJOmQn3zXzI This is one of my most recent works for violin and piano. Every now and then I enjoy putting myself into the world of (neo)classical forms and I try to compose something fresh within this quite strict approach. I hope you will find this composition interesting and I encourage you to write some reviews. Thank you!
  38. 1 point
    https://soundcloud.com/syadeu/way-1 Thanks 🙂
  39. 1 point
    I also thought it lost a little steam at the end - but also, go you for this being your 3rd soliloquy!
  40. 1 point
    I wrote some pieces with a jazzy feeling. Hope you like it.
  41. 1 point
    Hi there, I postet this piece almost exactly five years ago in a very early version (it was actually more of a MIDI mockup) and now in the last few weeks I've been working on it again very intensively. The whole thing was recorded with new and – hopefully – more realistic orchestral samples and re-arranged here and there. I would be happy to get some feedback, especially on the mix or the sound in general and what could be improved. Synthetically realizing an entire orchestra on a PC is really a science in itself (at least for me) and I must honestly admit that it took me at least two to three times as long for recording and mixing in the sequencer that for the actual composition in the notation program. https://soundcloud.com/dustin-naegel/a-swashbucklers-fanfare-1 As a video with excerpts from both score and sequencer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1qQsuz7TPg Thanks for your feedback :) Dustin
  42. 1 point
    This is a great discussion point - and one that I think the world of composition needs. There is no secret that I am a tonal composer. It's just the music I enjoy writing and listening to. As a composer, whichever combination of tones you use will create something that is unique to you, whether is be 5, 7, 8, or 12. Provided you are not copying a piece directly, then it is original enough. The biggest problem comes from exposure. Why would a (paying) audience go to see a symphony by an unknown composer which sounded Classical, rather than their favourite Mozart one. Here lies the problem with originality - performances. Bottom line, if you want to write tonally, do it. It's still original. However atonal music is more likely to be performed, which brings me to the next point. I, as a composer, want to write music that I enjoy. If someone tells you what style of music you should write, then that will ruin the enjoyment of music for you. This is the problem with conservatoires, who tend to only accept people with an avant-garde style which they consider to be more original. Not to attack John Cage, but silence? Seriously!? Disclaimer: I mean no disrespect to atonal/avant-garde composers. You are all equally skilled and creative. I just personally don't like the style. If even one other person besides me listens to my music and enjoys it, then I feel like I have succeeded in a way. I would like to get my music performed but composition isn't my main pursuit in music so I don't mind as much. New music ensembles tend to only want to perform avant-garde pieces, and traditional orchestras generally do not accept pieces from budding composers. As a composer, I want to reach out to other musicians and show them what I have worked on. You could say I am trying to "revolutionise music" because I want to show the world that tonal composers still flourish, even though they are looked down on by competitions and festivals. I thought about this a few months ago. I love the works of the greats from the last few centuries. It appeals strongly to me, because my ear - as most ears do - perceives it as right. Tonal music is designed to be pleasant - but that doesn't mean it is limited to what most non musicians think classical music is. Take two birds sitting on a branch. One sings tonally, the other races rats over a finish line and sings the notes in the order that they place. Which one will get a mate? The ear - our ear, an ant's ear, a bird's ear - likes the harmonic relationship between the frequencies of a tonal scale. My style, as I have said before, is tonal, but I like to experiment with the changing harmonies caused by a chromatic movement. Listen to this simply beautiful piece by Grieg. I didn't play it for a while, because from looking at the score I could see it had a lot of chromaticism. But it is still tonal, and this is what I try to write. I don't count myself as a pastiche of Grieg, because I draw my style from another source. Scotland has a rich traditional music heritage, and if you listen carefully to some of my most recent music (not posted here yet) you can hear the influences from playing fiddle in a school folk band. I even write specific Scottish traditional pieces to play in the group, although that is not the main part of my output. My style? Tonal×Accidentals×Scottish Music Music is so subjective. Thanks for sticking with me, it's my longest post ever.
  43. 1 point
    This is a good topic for discussion; thanks for bringing it up! I think each of us creates "original" music in the sense that we as composers create works of music that are uniquely our own. True, they may resemble certain styles and forms of other composers—I'm not sure one can ever escape that since all of our musical ideas are built upon stuff we've heard before and internalized. As we become more experienced, we're able to remove ourselves farther away from those influences, so our music slowly takes on its own voice. As to the "style" of originality as defined by the classical music elites, I'm stumped there. The style of music heralded by the elites as "purely original" is, as you mentioned, atonal. Proponents of atonal music posit that it's a musical era just like Romantic or Impressionism, but I disagree; up until the Modern/Postmodern era of classical music, composers followed the natural "rules" of music. Debussy (an Impressionist for those following along at home) did some weird things with tonality but he obeyed the rules. The human ear is wired to interpret certain pitch relationships as consonant and others as dissonant—and these days, some as purely chaotic. Modern/postmodern classical music, with its strong atonality, is the first musical movement to actually rebel against this natural rule, or at least disregard it, in the hopes of staying original. So, all this to say that modern composers have abandoned tonality because they believe there's nothing "original" left to be had there. Again, I disagree. It takes a lot more work and creative thinking to find an original voice in the world of tonality, but it's entirely possible—and very satisfying! I've a hunch that the great composers of our generation remembered 100 years down the road will not be the progressive, 12-tone serialists churning out mind-boggling, gut-wrenching cacophonies; rather, it will be those who continued to tinker with tonality and made music that meshed with the human soul. My goals are rather simple: write music that I like. I'd much prefer to revolutionize music than reach a big audience, but (for reasons mentioned above) I don't feel like that's going in the direction of the current avant-garde styles. There's still hundreds of years' worth of exploring to do in the world of tonality! So how original do we need to be? Well, be as original as you want to be! Some people create amazing works that sound like Beethoven or Mozart could have written. Others' sound like something from an outfit from Mars. The problem I find is that composers are either cliché tonal composers (little musical training) or else they're atonal. This probably has to do with the fact that atonal music is the prima donna right now among the elites; atonal music will receive the most praise (and it's difficult to criticize since it doesn't follow a lot of rules), so "serious" composers seek originality via that route. If there are atonal composers reading this, please don't get the wrong impression! I respect your compositional styles 100%; my point is that atonal music is not the sole arbiter of originality. As you might have guessed, my music is strongly tonal. However, I use a rich combination of chords throughout so it doesn't sound too cliché. In fact, I hate having to use conventional chord progressions; I strive to avoid them when I can. My works have a strong thematic element to them but are rarely melody-driven (in other words, not like Tchaikovsky and other Romantics). I also use a lot of unconventional modulations that loosely tie to the previous key. And I love counterpoint—I always try to use it when I can. It helps ensure that all players have "interesting" parts to play! I guess I'm describing Impressionism, and maybe that category best fits my musical style. Anyone is welcome to take a listen to some of my stuff and give their own opinion. 🙂
  44. 1 point
    I don't know how much music history you've studied up to this point, but this whole notion of material-based originality came from the genesis of the Romantic era, where the advancement of middle-class music making along with the general advancement of music printing/publishing combined. Composers started using super fancy/exotic-sounding titles and used increased harmonic changes to be more expressive and have their pick at the newly free market. I'll elaborate on my own opinions/answer more of the proposed questions if this discussion gets more lively, but I'm more a fan of the way the Classical era dealt with originality, where quality was based upon how well you could use old forms and conventions in your own style/ways. It doesn't sound very modern to us because it was their styles, but Haydn's and Beethoven's music were pretty novel when they were written. The modern era has taken this Romantic ideal of expression and newness to its extreme, trying to push progress without having the patience for it. The elitism and high-artness of modern classical music generally glosses over the music most people will listen to; how subtle its changes are to formulas, but how effectively catchy the songs are. Maybe my thoughts on this will change over time.
  45. 1 point
    A maximum-cheese, power metal tune I composed as a battle theme for an indie game. Let me know what you think.
  46. 1 point
    Hi Muhammadreza - welcome back. I like this piece a lot. I just watched the miniseries last night. a very powerful series. For me, you captured the essence of what Pripyat's forest might fee like now. I might suggest, you approach the drums with an orchestral feel, or like Ringo did in some of the Beatles later pieces, He played mostly fills, and turn arounds. The sparser drumming leaves more room for other instruments to shine.. I think this piece is my favorite of your work. Good job.
  47. 1 point
    This piece started out as the opening bars to movement II, which came to me while trying to sleep one night. The basic idea of movement III is one that I've had in my head for a couple years, ever since I wrote my first wind band piece in 2016/17. After that, movement I started with just me putting down notes to see what would happen. I've tried to experiment more with having instruments 'bleed' into each other (you can see this mostly in movement II), which is something I don't see much in most wind band writing. I haven't really pushed my harmonies that much (by my standards anyway) - I'm a bit reluctant to do that in a wind band context, because I don't think there's as much leeway as there is in the orchestral world, and I don't even feel a strong need to just yet. At the same time, though, I'm really proud of quite a lot of this piece, and I think it shows a few things that you can do with harmonies without necessarily pushing them to their absolute limits. I've tried to play around a bit with traditional wind band expectations, especially with regards to percussion, and I will continue to do so. I've always wanted to give a melodic solo to the temple blocks, for instance, and finally did so here in movement III. I also rebelled a little against using bass drum/cymbals in the traditional accompaniment oom-pah way, which is why I gave them a solo too. I worry a little that the movements are a little short, because I think each one could potentially go on for a full 5-6 minutes at least with their material. However, short individual movements is pretty common in wind band writing, and if the piece as a whole has a consistent feel and sound then I think it still works.
  48. 1 point
    Here is my latest orchestral tune. I was aiming for a sound in between realistic "live" orchestra and cinematic "epic" sound with big drums. I'd love to get some critical reviews of this.
  49. 1 point
    The nocturne has been made into a score video by thenameisgsarci! Now you can see the score! 😄
  50. 1 point
    These 2 pieces for Piano Trio were written for the Moscow Conservatory's 2018 International Winter School, along with the Etude-Tableau in B-flat minor, Op. 6. The musicians who performed it were Mikhail Akinfin and Alexandra Parfeneva, from the Piano Quartet performance, with of course myself at the piano. I might combine these 2 pieces (not conjoin them!), and possibly add more movements to make a full Piano Trio, with a possibly programmatic element to it. Here are the performances on Youtube: Nocturne in C major, Op. 5: Romance in E major: I hope you all enjoy. 🙂 Theo
  • Create New...