Leaderboard

Yes, because THAT'S the issue, isn't it? You're on a slippery slope as it is, but now you're taking freedoms with your position of authority in this discussion that you don't have and using them to bolster your position. I have in mind to correct your edits to Tokkemon's post and take it up with admins, but I trust you can correct this on your own without further recourse. See, that's why we have rules, which are merely expectations in concrete form. This enhances communication and makes for a more positive collaboration of viewpoints into something informative. However, in the case of music, we have no "rules." What we still have are expectations - of ourselves and others, as well as expectations of music by others - this certainly doesn't eliminate artistic freedom, but it does hold us accountable for our choices as artists. Choosing to ignore those expectations others have for us as artists and for music isn't a huge deal to some, but over the past 100 years, that appears to be the predominant approach to teaching composition. This approach is not without its drawbacks, because the student that says I want to write music like this because I like it and other people like it (commonly music of the commercial realm) is more often chastised for not knowing more contemporary art music, for not giving it a chance, and so on. You seem to think you're the oppressed minority here. You, SSC, are in good company among academics the world over. It may not seem so to you, but from my vantage point, I've spent several years taking it upon myself to fill in the huge gaps in my knowledge that this approach to educating me as a composer has led to. You, on the other hand, are quite clearly where you chose to be, and if you don't like where that is, it's your own damn fault. You didn't think there would be criticism? You didn't think there would be completely closed minded bigots that could care less about what you are trying to do? News Flash! You have no reason to complain about the Bizarro-Academic or any other bigot, because you make art and must stand by what you make. Unfortunately, if people don't want to listen to it, that's not anyone else's problem but YOURS! If you want full and complete freedom to do whatever the hell you want, you have no basis to scallop and argue with people over the classics and these old warhorses that time and again you complain about, and you have no basis to complain about the contemporary music environment, the trials and tribulations of securing performances and so forth. THAT SHIP SAILED ALREADY. I've done enough complaining of my own about the academic approach to music composition. As infuriating as it is to me, I made my choices as well and accept the consequences. That's what we do as adults, so stop throwing a fit.

I have a nice piano VST and am willing to convert your midi for you for the delicious price of $0.00 dollars :thumbsup: If you want an example of how it sounds -- http://www.box.net/shared/a99v6jcs0o (One of Woodruff's older pieces that really benefited from a make-over) http://www.box.net/shared/kf5fl7hrp3 (MP3) or http://www.box.net/shared/vfdr1yos5z (MP3) Go ahead -- give me your well-articulated midi for processing, preferably in Box links for downloading.

I said nothing to the contrary, did I? Regardless of what the composer desires to do, the composer is a listener. Just because the composer controls the sound doesn't mean the composer is not a listener in the process. Whether the composer hears the work before or after putting it to paper or notation, the composer relies on some kind of musical judgment to make decisions about it, from what to include to what to exclude. All of this ultimately results in a final product, one of which the composer intended others to hear (presumably) and by doing so listens to him or herself. No, I do not. The last listener is the one to which artistic freedom extends. Ergo, it is a finite construct with infinite possibilities that depend solely on how long the work is listened to, performed, etc. Yes, I assume that ultimately a work will cease to be performed as aesthetics and expectations change over time. But in the moment, music offers insight into other social factors on which to understand cultures of the past. It can be demonstrably shown that, as we understand it now, fewer and fewer works will receive infinite performances as more and more music is created. The human being cannot hear every work ever written as it stands now, even spending 24 hours a day 7 days a week listening with no breaks and no sleep. Far from targeting an audience, it's a matter of identifying what most audiences connect with, absent the specifics of any one musical language. This is largely conceptual and open, not, as you put it, the production of "catacombs" for the living. And this whole comparison of my approach to Adolf is too melodramatic and plainly ignorant for me to waste any time with, so I'm moving on. No, I disagree entirely, and it's not the first time I've heard these thoughts regarding "totalitarianism" in arts. I don't care to expound on this further. It's a tiring argument to have with anyone who turns a blind eye to "the now".

Ok, everyone! Good News! I was able to re-engineer the demo full choir audio that you have all heard into a Live Performance tempo! (Thank u very much, Acid MUSIC STudio 8.0) So, that means that we now have a recording that we sing to as we record ourselves singing the different parts!!! So now its up to all of you to make the SATB part recordings. Record them and send them ton me as soon as possible and I will get to work on mixing them. I will provide an email address to send the recordings to at the bottom of this post. If the files are too big to send, go ahead compress them and send in a .zip or .rar archive file. I'll download uncompress them on my computer and mix them. I am incredibly engerized and excited about this, guys!!! It looks like this is really going to happen!! And Soon!!! (I Hope) Thank you all, again, for agreeing to do this. It really means a lot to me and my fiancee!!! May the universe smile upon you all and may you recieve from it 10 times the positive energy that you have given to the world through the song! Bless You! Regards, J. Glenn Wright :phones: :phones: :phones: P.S. the email address to send the recordings to is neuro.trance.formations@gmail.com Here is the Link to the Live Performance Tempo Audio: There Will Be Rest (live performance tempo).mp3

Geez, Shaun - you should know me better than this. Taking my cues from a movie that I've never seen!? I nearly LOL'd. I took my cues from reading his notebooks, reading the conversation books, and from written records from people around him. A person can be engaged in his/her surroundings while at the same time living in a vacuum - and Beethoven, as well documented, was one individual that provides a very clear and concise case on the matter. Yes, there was a far greater consumption of music in the upper class in those days. And I never said that a 'minstrel' show was anywhere near a 'modern' rock show. The fact of the matter isn't whether the folk music of the period was anything related to modern day pop or rock - though certainly one could, and probably has, made connections to that regard - the matter is whether a commoner attended a symphony orchestra concert. I'm afraid I'm not following your train of thought in this paragraph. You go from talking about how no distinction can be made between art and popular music as one could in the 18th century and then your accusing me of glossing over as 'though it's broadly the same now as it was then'? Well, I strongly disagree - and this is more my historical side then my musical side. I think, sadly, your missing my point here - and literally, you seem to be going well over the ball park in trying to actually quantify what I said. First, we have to remove the idea that music today = music of yesterday. The truth of the matter is that music today =/= the music of yesterday. Just the same way as current social roles and expectations =/= the social roles and expectations of the past. Yes, one could get on that age old argument that a composer builds on work laid by a predecessor (yada yada) but that isn't even part of the conversation here. That said, assuming that I'm equating the musical experience today to that of yesterday is really something I'm shocked at. Especially considering that there are more avenues of expression available and the fact that we have far more means to create music then existed some 100 years ago. Anyways, I digress. The point I was making was that to say that Beethoven and Mozart were the most successful musicians of their times is logically false. As I made in my original point on this: there music was consumed largely by the upper 1% of society at the time. Does that mean that peasantry also appreciated there music? That's hard to say - but, I think given the fact that most - if not all - could barely afford food, I highly doubt they could afford to sit in on a concert. And that brings me to some proof on the matter: Mozart's public concerts. Mozart, as history shows, did give public subscription concerts of his work in Vienna. These were widely popular AND most likely did draw in commoners. How many attended? Who knows - all we know is that special areas were zoned for the Emperor, princes, nobles, bishops, etc. Mozart also, as history shows, did have few performances in more 'homely' establishments (casinos, etc.). It's far more complex really BUT I feel pretty confident to say that Lil' Mahalia Doe who lived in a rural village with 4 kids and an annual household income of a meager $20 probably didn't get much time to go to the local city to listen to Mozart. And, I think it's fair to say, given the fact that Lil' Mahalia was a fair representation of at minimum 80% of the population at that time... most people didn't. So, the question is... 1. What music did she listen to? 2. What were her thoughts on musical expression, if any? 3. What exposure to music did she have? Just taking an educated guess on these three important questions... I'd have to say that she probably listened largely to music that was being made everyday around her: folk music. I think it's virtually impossible to gauge her thoughts on musical expression. Exposure wise, I think that she had a limited exposure to music that was limited by the sharp class hierarchy and societal norms that were largely widespread in Europe from 800 AD to around 1910 AD (perhaps as early as 1880.) Sorry that I had to use an example. I thought it was important though to really bring a more colorful approach to this. Now, to risk you saying I'm over generalizing...... By 1910, the middle class was large enough to be a larger consumer market for art and media. One good example of this is the rise of the piano. The piano by 1910 was in virtually every middle class home. As sheet music from this time showcases (and from the 1880s and 1890s), middle class families demanded music regularly. This created a HUGE market for piano music - and the result, of course, is that many works were being transcribed for piano AND new works were being created. Many modern publishing houses have their roots in this time period - and for precisely this very reason. So, did the piano market and the middle class just 'magically' appear fully developed by 1910? Absolutely not. The roots of the burgeoning middle class today go back no early than at least 1790 - and to some degree perhaps as soon as 1780. Pretty much they go back to the start of industrialization. From the start of the process until roughly 1910, there was a steady growth - that has been WELL documented. I hope that adds more light on the matter. I was nearly on the floor when I saw you misconstrue what I said. :blink:

Heh, call it my take on reality. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Our artistic freedom extends to the last listener. So, if you're composing with only yourself in mind, obviously your artistic freedom is whatever you make of it. When we then bring the issue of "who is listening" to modern music, I stand by my assessment... our artistic freedom extends to the last person who listens. If the issue is whether or not anyone is listening to modern works, clearly there are people listening. If the issue is why more people are not listening, this is my opinion on the matter. That's all I have to say about it. Are we taking our cues on the life of Beethoven from Immortal Beloved? Here's a tip. Don't. From what we understand about Beethoven, this period of "seclusion" in his life lasted up to about his Third Symphony! Beyond that, while there were emotional trials to face in life, I believe it is you that is over-generalizing the details to make a point that Beethoven was composing in a vacuum. Quite the opposite, actually. He was actually quite passionate and outspoken on matters, he was social in many respects, and he was not living a life of perpetual isolation as it was dramatized in the movie at some points of his life. While the issues with his nephew's suicide attempt weighed on his mind, he was quite literally engaged with the world around him... which happened to be one of his great fears when he wrote his letter to his brother before writing the Eroica, that he would be unable to be engaged with the world because of his condition. To say otherwise is to mitigate the circumstances that he lived with and overcame. To say Beethoven composed in a vacuum is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread. As to your other points, Jason, I have to say that taking the aristocracy into account, there was a far greater consumption of music in that social class than among the peasantry as well. What I mean by this is that "minstrel" music was a far cry from what a "Rock Concert" is today. People arrive in the hundreds of thousands to see a Rock Star perform live, and if you're Michael Jackson, multiply that number by a hundred. Still, with communication being what it was in the 18th Century, there was a far greater demand by paying attendees for the art, and there were plenty among the commoners that would, if they could, attend a symphony orchestra concert. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Today, the level of complexity and artistry in these "common", "middle-class" events where music is performed is just as viable as the complexity of a "modern music concert." There is no distinction to make now between "art" and "popular" the way the distinction could be made in the 18th Century (atrociously, of course, because the distinction is unnecessary anyway beyond the trivial discussion we're having here). Quite frankly, I'm blown away that this is being glossed over as though it's broadly the same now as it was then - another generalization that appears to ignore a great deal of differences in the WORK PRODUCT (not just the emergence of a middle class) and the consumption of it - it's not even close, not even in the ball park. Sadly, I think some of the academics out there approach it with this same, grossly over-generalized misconception. I might vomit if I continue hearing it construed in this manner.

I'm sorry for the quote below: I don't know what I was talking about and for that I'm sorry. Seems like a wonderful idea, Sir. Thank you for your suggestion. I have no problem that other people have different tastes; it is their right to have them. However, they should not be forcing it on me if I don't like it, nor should they insult people who think their way is the way. BTW, insults are never mindless. Mind you, sometimes the reasoning isn't always sound, but there's always a reason behind it, something premeditated.

I propose something. How about we ban the note F# above middle C. Anyone using it in a piece of music uploaded here will be banned for it. We can make a little banner saying this. Or how about changing the arbitrary restriction every week with something else? Maybe the week after we can ban quarters and major thirds, or how about banning string instruments? Loving the idea already, right? You must be. But wait, wouldn't it be even better if it wasn't just a ban, but we'd take the offending person's music and post it along with denigrating comments and attacks? You know, making an example out of it? Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't it? How about I also go and censor one of your posts as well? I mean what's the difference if it's music or text, or anything right? Let's get rid of some of the freedom. Must be a dream come true for you guys, I know!

'we as composers should.' your opinion enlarged to a set of composers. not logically valid. 'regardless of what composer does, he is a listener' again, logical nonsense.(hint - listening is doing) 'the last listener is the one to whom artistic freedom extends'. you haven't given the case of who is this 'one', it can't be empirical construct. no go. then, you say, it's conceptually open. well, it is, because it's conceptual and not empiric construct. but - gain you go - knowing the audience is conceptually open. here is an empirical swing ('audience') with conceptual indexing ('opennes of concept that could define an audience). no go. it may be melodramatic, but it does not mean that your logic works differently than that of herr adolf. could we have a case here? i don't know. i suggest an analogy, which may or may not be transdisciplinary, so to say. 'the now'? are you saying you have a good grip of 'the now'? 'the now' is time to take the power in our hands and fry the infidels, for we know what is 'the now' wanting us to do! it does not matter whether music is performed a lot. mozart is performed more now than in his lifetime. did he know 'the now' or 'the now now'? if 'the now' is so important why wouldn't we start composing what is cool for most of the audience to have more hits on youtube? hey, who cares about that lone possible listener scrolling past millions of musics of 'the now' to find some music!? screw him. and her as well. we, as a new breed of socioposers, should do what 'the now' is!

Yes, this is a good analysis of the work. I tend to dream about sleeping with anorexic lesbians. Astute ear!