Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/28/2020 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    IN A DIFFERENT WORLD YC Composer Competition - Summer, 2020 We live in a bit of an unprecedented time and it seems that many of us are, understandably, feeling many emotions ranging from anger to fatigue to even hope. Whatever your reaction, welcome to this summer's competition, where you'll attempt to express it as creatively as possible. I. Topic: Compose a piece that in some way mirrors one's reaction to the 2020 global pandemic and how it may or may not sway or adapt over time into something else. II. Eligibility: 1. You must be a member of the Young Composers forum in order to enter. Sign ups will be in the comments below for JUDGE or ENTRANT. Comment "I'd like to enter as ____" for entry. 2. There will again be no limits regarding instrumentation. There is no minimum length, but there is a maximum length of 15 minutes. 3. You must have some sort of audio rendition accompanying your work. 4. You must present a score of your music for judging. 5. If you volunteer to be a judge, you may not enter as a contest participant. III. Scoring: Scoring will be split into two categories with two "winners" – member voting and traditional judging. Member Voting: Once submissions have been entered, members will get three votes in which to vote on each other's pieces. These votes are tiered, meaning you will vote for your favorite entry, your second favorite entry, and your third favorite entry. The criteria or reasons for your vote need not be explained, though participants are highly encouraged to leave reviews on each other's works regardless. Members will send their first, second, and third choice picks to the facilitator @Noah Brode after the submission deadline. Failure to do so will result in disqualification. Traditional Judging: How well is the central process of the piece executed? How effective is the progression, or in the case of a lack of a linear one, how well is it represented? Most importantly, how internally consistent is the piece in the construction of a narrative? /25 How well is the piece orchestrated? Do instrumental orchestration (range, ability, etc.) and voice leading seem to be appropriate? How effective is the treatment of the ensemble? /20 How clear is the score and audio of the submission? /5 A brief written segment (1-2 sentences) is required to explain the premise of the piece, if any. /0 Entrants whose primary language is not English are encouraged still to participate, as the diction and syntax themselves will not be judged. Judges will not judge the premise itself and will use the explanation to rationalize participant choices. Timeline: Members will submit entries by first submitting their piece to @Noah Brode, both the score and the audio file. SUBMISSION DEADLINE FOR ENTRANTS: AUGUST 14, 11:59 PST JUDGING DEADLINE FOR ENTRANTS: AUGUST 21, 11:59 PST JUDGING DEADLINE FOR JUDGES: AUGUST 28, 11:59 PST
  2. 3 points
    MOD NOTE: This thread was originally locked with posts removed insofar as they became or led to inciting remarks for further review from me and OP. I will admit that this was a hasty decision and I don’t wish to set a precedent of merely halting conversation upon the first sight of danger, though comments that are primarily inflammatory in nature quickly become irrelevant and are socially unwelcome. I want to be clear that my actions were not intended to silence opinions, but quell the heated argument; in this case, my attempts to make peace overstepped and failed. This thread is now reopened as the previous discussion was good, and while I deeply apologize to those involved that I cannot replicate the removed comments, I do hope the conversation can continue as it was, civilly and thoughtfully.
  3. 2 points
  4. 2 points
    Another prelude in my set of 24 for each key. A very short one this prelude capturing my interpretation with C# Major. short and too the point but beautiful while it lasts. please leave thoughts down below.
  5. 2 points
    There is a bit of both involved in it. It kinda creates a feedback loop. Incoming longpost: I kinda talk about this in my thread on here about the deification of Film/Game composers, and I have had a number of (disappointing) discussions with composers, even very successful ones, IRL and online. On a number of occasions, I have talked with trailer music composers and the like who literally cannot fathom the idea of music not simply being a "product" but something more important than just a tune that fits the latest Marvel trailer. I have had many conversations with musicians who believe that a musician's skill can purely be measured in how many soundcloud or youtube followers you have, unaware of the fact that the most popular music YouTubers are often just hot girls with patreons and modest musical skill. Everyone wants to be an "epic" composer because that's where the money is and having your track in the trailer/game/movie is like this big status booster, because so many people are hooked on these products and even incorporate it into their identity. For example, for years I was a part of another forum called OCReMix, and I have a few remixes that were on their albums and YouTube channels and such — some of them have 10s of thousands of views, I think. Some guy even made a guitar hero play-through of one. While I really liked the community there, the one negative thing I can say is that a lot of people had too much attachment to "video game music" in particular (because they were super attached to video games) and it is my opinion that the site frankly has leveraged that consumerism against the musicians. Like, a few years ago, I remember there was this big blow up when it was found out that the owner of the site monetized all of the thousands of remixes on their YouTube channel (a service they do not pay for) and had intentionally avoided telling the community about that change for 3 whole months and his defense was "nobody noticed." As you might expect, at first, this sent the community into a rage, but the Admin was able to easily dispel by spinning some yarn about how it was going to make the site better and enable them to better realize their "mission" in spreading the love and cheer of video game music (I guess) and that he intended to file for the site to become a non-profit organization. They have since become a non-profit, going about whatever their crusade supposedly stands for, and that means that any excess money not used for "operating costs" (of which they have very little) goes back to furthering that cause. The Admin, who just finished admitting he deceived the entire community, expects you to believe that he does not make any money of this endeavor he's been building for most of his adult life. Now, all of the remixes past and present, which were created for fun by fans and do not generate them money, are pulling in ad revenue not just for OCReMix (via a platform it does not cost them to upload to) but a portion also goes to all of the video game publishers who own the music, and are multi-million or billion dollar, global corporations all while the musicians make nothing. The community is now not just fine with it, but many champion it as something virtuous because they see these games as a part of their very identity as a musician, but in reality — they're just being exploited. Giving once free but now paid advertising to global corporations via music remixes that can never truly be theirs. I once got into a heated argument with the community about why we should place more value on our OWN compositions than on covers of video game tunes. Music which, while certainly has a lot of good stuff, was ultimately made to be attached to something that was meant simply to sell, sell, sell. It is not of the same origin as something like Beethoven or Grieg, and their connection to PEOPLE. The one musician who first brought this whole monetization fiasco to the community's attention, and was a respected member of the community with more posted remixes than anyone for a long time, was quickly turned on by the community and banned for opposing the Admin's decisions. To most of those people, music is at its best when it's a part of a consumer product; consumer products that their fandom of, forms an integral part of who they are as not just musicians, but people. It's sad. When you say "composer" to most modern people, they think of all the mini Hans Zimmers working on the next movie or they think of old guys who make a bunch of weird, abstract art music they don't like and doesn't resonate with them. But when you sit in on say, a really-great Celtic folk music performance: And you just are awestruck by the performances, the catchy and soaring melodies, how well crafted the whole piece is, how everything falls into place so perfectly and both layman and expert alike are inspired by its beauty and genius — it is the same as one feels gazing upon the Neuschwanstein Castle or one of the Japanese castles while the cherry blossoms are in full bloom, at the Chapel in Notre Dame, or standing before a Bernini sculpture or Bryullov painting — even though the name of the composer of the piece may be lost to history, it's beauty endures and it still burns with the unique spirit of the people who created it, and still brings them together and inspires them forever. THAT is what it's supposed to be about — and avant-garde noise and drone music, or meaning/formless splatter paintings, and a cross dumped in urine will never be able to be that kind of positive force.
  6. 2 points
    Hi guys, I'm new to Young Composer's. I just had one of my pieces recently recorded and I posted to Youtube. I'd love for you guys to take a listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMBLrWS7mhg&feature=youtu.be I hope everyone is doing well and hanging in there in these times! J
  7. 2 points
    Sort of a Rachmaninoff-ish piece. It's much longer than anything I've written so far, and I sort of feel that the repeated A section at the end gets somewhat boring. Would like some feedback on how to expand this even more. It's usually the transitions that make it hard for me to write longer pieces. Thank you!
  8. 2 points
    I think that's relevant to your bit there. There's a lot of value in freedom, sure, but the whole idea of "we can do anything" is not a very pragmatic one. We can pick and choose from everything, yes, but at the end of the day you need to make choices and discard some things and keep others. Eventually, all those options need to disappear to leave just what actually ends up being done. I think the classic example of this is when people are learning orchestration and arrangement. This is because of the vast amount of options you have when you're doing those things, but it can be really hard to get a grip on what actually "needs to be done," rather than "could be done." Needs in this case being the individual's musical intuition/musical preference/etc. This is also why it's such a classic pedagogic trick to start people off with very strict rulesets for things that in reality have no rules, since it gives you a framework. Some would argue that it kind of shackles your mind to imaginary boundaries and eventually that's a problem, but that's still preferable to an Overchoice induced musical paralysis
  9. 2 points
    This is usually what happens when children are involved. I don't really understand the point of being antagonist towards other people's tastes in music, plus, writing music in different styles and aesthetics is usually a powerful learning tool.
  10. 2 points
    I feel that the questions you are asking are at the very heart of modern classical/ contemporary music. Right out of the gate I will say I find the music of Cage Schoenberg and Webern very unmusical and more academic than actually music, though of course that is just my opinion. I also see those experiments as why composers must go to absurd lengths to justify the choices in their compositions other than "it's what they wanted to write" not they must be inspired by some obscure ancient myth about the world being an egg in some birds stomach or some nonsense like that. I do believe that this has caused music to ascend to the "elite" areas. because most "modern" composers must produce an essay to explain their work other than the fact they had a really cool idea for a symphony. One composer I am glad who does not follow this pattern who I am surprised I have not seen on here is Alma deutscher. she is very unapologetic in her writing. and just writes what she wants. I hope this paves the way for the next generation of composers to truly write pieces for the sake of beauty rather than academia.
  11. 1 point
    Hi guys, So this is my current project for those who may be interested. I have been listening to a lot of Baroque music lately, particularly the work of Zelenka. I hold his music in great esteem, particularly his trio sonata's which provide an infinite source for inspiration. A favorite of mine from his instrumental catalog is his trio sonata in G minor, number 2. The opening theme of this my work attached reminds me of something one might hear in an aria by JS Bach for Tenor or Bass, as part of a cantata work. I am a big fan of his cantata's and I would not be surprised if I there is not anything derivative from that body of works. This is the first time I have used keyboard, oboe and bassoon as a combination and I must admit I quite like it. If there is enough interest in this post I may be persuaded to do a self-analysis of the final work for those who might want to learn some of the schemas I have used here.
  12. 1 point
  13. 1 point
    Been taking the ScoreClub courses during lockdown and I have been trying some of Alain's concepts. Started with this short score: https://www.dropbox.com/s/slp8v1lshrjn9ml/OTL1.pdf?dl=0 Turned it in to this rough mock-up: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hixnckkz8mnyrq9/OTL1.mp3?dl=0 Put it in to Sibelius: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lvhwqm86v79s1b7/OTL - CONCERT SCORE.pdf?dl=0 And here's the Noteperformer: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6kp0licvfo0xt5f/OTL_sib.mp3?dl=0
  14. 1 point
    Why, to be created by the artist of course! Why does art need to have a "purpose"? Do clouds or the ocean have a "purpose"? We can fit them inside a chain of events, OK, but they themselves are just acts of nature that don't have a "reason" to be, or a "role" to play. I posit that people's creations work in the same manner, and that asking if it has a role is solely dependent on the person who made the individual work since, as a whole, they're just like a force of nature that doesn't need a reason to be or exist at all, it just does. I mean people can get moved emotionally by a nice looking sunset or any other randomly-generated nature vista, why is art any different? In the end the most important part is the person experiencing the art itself, not the work in a vacuum.
  15. 1 point
    Beautiful! I love the Ab major to C major movement, it occurs multiple times in the piece, so for seems like a very good choice to end on. The canonic - as well as the rhythmic elements give the music a real sense of drive. Last but not least, this rendition is really remarkable, especially given the circumstances!
  16. 1 point
    Thank you for writing this piece. You've really managed to create a dark, 'last waltz' kind of feeling and atmosphere. The combination of oboe and guitar adds to this feeling I think. I am no expert on writing for guitar, so maybe someone else will have something useful to say on this. What I do feel would add to the intensity of the piece is a contrasting middle section. Right now it is only dark, and I think contrasting it with something else (rhytmically, melodically, or harmonically) will bring out your intentions with the piece even more. Example of this (contrast starts at around 1:20):
  17. 1 point
    I think the role of art is to project our sense of meaning into the universe, thus making our environment more legitimately meaningful. It (among many other things) is proving that an imagined sense of meaning is a real one. I also believe that creating something tangible that makes you feel something, and then showing it to others and it makes them feel something, is almost like emotional telepathy. It is a much more direct mode of emotional communication than anything else. As humans we know meaning when we see it, it's an instinctual spiritual yearning, it is a bittersweet feeling of something greater than yourself. It makes you cry, and you don't know why. That is why I love music, because it is much bigger than the person who wrote it.
  18. 1 point
    woah. First ima give props to whoever set that up because it sounded very good. Secondly, this sounded hella fun to sing. It’s a shame it won’t be sung for a long time with the way choirs are going. But this has all of the best parts of traditional orthodox music (low bass parts, melody in the soprano and alto with a descant in the tenor. As well as the cool changes throughout. I want to sing it now lol. Also I love the song choice, choosing bogoroditse, which is a beautiful text I think everyone loves. Gorgeous.
  19. 1 point
    Not for the judges. Just for the members voting.
  20. 1 point
    It's a very introspective work, just like the title suggests. I'm not a clarinetist so I can't comment on the technical stuff, but it sounds playable. It would be beneficial to include the score. Overall, great job!
  21. 1 point
    You are making this way too complicated for a friendly competition which is really for personal satisfaction and with no tangible prize. How about just having separate awards for judges, members, and entrants separately, similar to how competitions have an audience prize. Make the judges award the "official" result but still allowing for others to have their input.
  22. 1 point
    Well. If a clarinet could speak a language, this would be it. I felt like I just came from a four-minute clarinettish diatribe against how the oboe always gets the spotlight. Fine job, sir. Birdsong-like in its melody, it absolutely explores the limits of this charming instrument. Thanks for sharing! I hope you're able to get it performed.
  23. 1 point
    Any chance you'd transpose that to the enharmonic, Db major? Not a lot of people sight-read C# major as well as Db, so it would just be easier on the eyes. I think it's a very wise thing to work through the key signatures with these preludes like you're doing, so you can get a better feel for how they fit together. This prelude works well, almost like an etude, but with enough unexpected turns to keep it interesting. I liked the flowing-ness of this one a lot. Keep up the good work!
  24. 1 point
    This is a good point and part of what has made me hesitant to judge in the past. I don't have a degree in music, and I only have one orchestral performance experience under my belt. I consider myself to be, essentially, a somewhat competent amateur -- which makes it difficult for me to pass judgment on those who are more experienced or educated in the field than I am. That's why I'd like to be the "organizer" for this competition! Yes, that would be great. What about a deadline of 11:59 PM Pacific Time on Saturday, July 18? That would give the entrants roughly a month and a half of composition time, and we could have the results announced by Aug. 1. That is, if enough people agree to the terms of the voting system.
  25. 1 point
    This is a very exciting prelude, and I think it displays well your growing prowess in meandering through neighboring tonalities. In particular, I enjoyed those cadential dim7 chords at m.3, for instance... made the piece sound extra 'stormy.' There were a couple of places that lacked a convincing cadence, though, at least to my ears. At m.9, that descending run through a C harmonic minor scale atop a block C minor chord was too musically abrupt. While this may have been intentional to add to the character of the piece, it came across, to me, as a mistake. You could probably continue the stepwise pattern down from the previous measure (which ends in a tremoloed G in the bass) to F then Eb then D, and this will, I think, provide a better cadential feel than the immediate switch back to the tonic. (You'll need to adjust your notes in the treble clef, too, of course.) Measures 13-20 proceeded too quickly through various tonalities for my tastes. I would suggest either doubling the amount of time spent in each tonality (Eb in m. 14, for instance) or getting rid of some of those chord progressions altogether. Nothing about this section felt 'wrong,' however. It just seemed to be a quick departure into major tonalities for the sake of departing into major tonalities. Overall, though, you've done a great job here. I look forward to hearing more of your stuff!
  26. 1 point
    Lol XD..... I am a Tuba player.... I ain't complaining 🙂 Thanks though! 🙂
  27. 1 point
    To this point, I can only say: I hadn't ever been as confused in my fugue-composing experience as I am right now. It's the third fugue I've been able finish in a single week, and I still can't understand why is that, having been in utter stagnation for almost three months before. Anyways, I'm really glad I have now been able to finish this one, and hopefully I won't turn into lack of inspiration back again, so that I'll be able to continue composing at this rate! By the way, I was hoping in case anyone could give me some insight on whether this is a fugue or an invention. As far as I intended it to be, it lacks any form of countersubject (I think), so I'm unsure whether I should continue callling it a fugue or rather turn around to the term invention instead. Also, hope you listeners like it, of course! EDIT: improved the final cadence.
  28. 1 point
    Great job! It sounds pretty epic
  29. 1 point
    Interesting piece, like a chromatic study.
  30. 1 point
    I am personally leaning toward wanting the judges having a greater weight in the final scores, and the popular vote have having a smaller weight (but still counting for something). If people want the scoring system to be purely based on the popular vote, though, then I'd say there's not really any need to have judges at all -- maybe just an organizer? -- since their fellow contestants and other members would be, in effect, their judges. It would be a shame to ask anyone to go through all the work of being a judge for so many pieces if their detailed feedback would have little or no impact on the outcome of the competition as a whole. In other words, I'd like to be a judge (I've got a lot of other stuff I'm composing right now), but I think it would be kind of crazy to have a panel of judges who don't have any effect on the actual competition at all. I would also be happy to be the "organizer" if that is the direction we'd like to go.
  31. 1 point
    Ok maybe I was too harsh but for my taste I'm not big on a lot of big name modern composers I think often they're praised on concepts or being influential in academic circles rather than the merit of their own music.
  32. 1 point
    Again, I reserve the right to make the observation that I believe that this exchange (about your supposed ad hominem, which again, you fail to realize how it works DESPITE agreeing with me??!?) has been rather pointless. That you then go and extrapolate that into what you believe I'm implying (again with the assumptions, huh?) is not my problem. You really seem to like assuming and over-analyzing stuff, but it's not going to get you very far honestly if all it does is drag on something pointless like this. That's energy better spent elsewhere. INDEED. Well that's why I added the (maybe) next to your name. I think you're far more neutral and level-headed than ACO who outright just said: Which is a bunch of nonsense since he assumes you need to ACCEPT different philosophies, but you can certainly reject them instead. In fact, like I do! I'm not much of a "centrist", but rather I analyze each individual argument on its own merits regardless of they fall on whatever political compass is popular at the time of writing. Turns out I reject quite a lot of arguments from both the extreme "left" and extreme "right." And of course, I also think some positions from both sides are worth considering! Shocking, I know. No, I get what you're saying. I just think that the diversification and ease of access explains a lot of what seems to have "changed," rather than people themselves being fundamentally different in some way. You actually know those genres exist, which is far more than some guy in some small town in 1780 would be able to know about the world. It's clear that paradigms need to shift, then, as the world itself became incredibly connected in a way that has never happened before. IF you want to say anything is actually new, THAT is actually new, and the result and consequence of that is something we're still trying to understand. What may appear as "change" could be things that have always been there, but because that connectivity wasn't there, you couldn't perceive it and it didn't have as much of an impact. How? That's what I don't understand. Where's the connection there? It's a pointless accusation coming from someone who considers me "their enemy," right? I can also reach for my bag of "culture war-speak" and say most of your statements are dog-whistles, bla bla bla. But that's retarded, as is the context for your accusation: Shutting down a possible interpretation because I choose to use a different word to analyze it is -not- redefinition. I didn't take a word and twisted its meaning, I applied an entirely different word to a situation we BOTH saw was happening. If anything, I agreed with the phenomena, but I chose to view it through a different perspective. This is part of normal intelligent discourse and you may not agree with my POV on the subject. HOWEVER, what you're doing is attacking my perceived "method" of doing this, which is frankly laughable. SPECIALLY the "Orwellian trick" bit. Quinn said it brilliantly, so much so I will quote him AGAIN: In the end tho, what I'm for is very simple: Open exchange of ideas. I may think stuff you do is laughable, but much like Tonskald said: But I'm probably not as nice as he is about it.
  33. 1 point
    Saying it's a "strange thing to say," means, literally, that I think it's a strange thing to say. It's not an argument, it's an observation! It does not mean that you're "abnormal." Remember, offense is taken, not given. Also, do learn how to use ad hominem, as I did no such thing. At all. I did not base any of my arguments on an attack on your person. IF you want to take my words as an attack, that's on you as that was not my intention. Jeesh. No, that's quite simply not the case. Moral relativism is overly present on the internet, perhaps, but in real life our laws and civilization at large does not stick to individualistic rules but rather by collective rules. This carries over into art as well, as the reason why "pop music" is so incredibly popular is due to a massive shared taste in a particular set of musical/artistic parameters. It flies totally in the face of relativism when pop music is still working with the same mechanisms it always has for years and years. This has roots in the fact that brains are, well, similar to a large extent and process music (language and syntax expectancy) in a very similar way, so "naturally" people tend to gravitate towards things that hit those sweet spots. Nothing relativistic about that, it's just straight out neuroscience (+ cognitive science.) A society can accept individual freedoms to an extent, which is something defined by the code of law and civil rights of each country. However, they have limits. Thing about art is, there is no real limit to artistic freedom because it's, well, pretty harmless. Unless of course you want to go do actual illegal things and say it's art, in which case I'm not sure how that would work philosophically, but the practical reality is that it'd be the "wrong thing to do." There's no moral ambiguity in general when it comes to many things, and people tend to fall sharply on either side of a spectrum. Think of it rather as a change in priorities, rather than lack of standards. Someone doing a painting with menstrual blood is kind of yuck, but it's harming nobody in the grand scheme of things. It really isn't. If someone would think they need to be sent to an insane asylum or have their careers ruined over this, then they need a new hobby. The priority is much rather to avoid pointless conflict, as this would be, than to persecute people for having wacky ideas that are at the end of the day harmless.
  34. 1 point
    Except for what you say about all of this is objectively false. I don't know specifically who you are, but "we" as in white western people, the people whose ancestors created the bulk of the art we're specifically talking about right now, are absolutely not more numerous in number than 200 years ago. Birth rates have been negative for decades now. We used to have 4 children per woman, now about 4 cats per woman. The population growth is only due to foreign immigration and they usually have above-replacement rates...though like I said, it affects everyone. East Asia, South America... The other aspect is, as I have pointed out in those surveys in those posts that Monarcheon deleted, as much as 80% of people agree that modern art and such, really sucks. The main thing here though, is that modern relativists control literally all of academia and political power. They are the people making the decisions and the ones "educating" all the future generations, and have been for the better part of 100 years now. I'd recommend everyone in this thread to read "The Decline and Fall of Western Art" by Brendan Heard, who has a master's degree in art. In it, he explains the history of all this modernist nonsense and how, during his studies, students who showed real artistic skill was berated to the point of tears for showing said artistic skill. This mirrors the experiences of most art students I know, and also my own experiences in college with their music programs. People who are going to get educations in the arts and architecture are not learning the kinds of skills and aesthetics of our ancestors. If you want to learn how to paint as well as the renaissance painters did, you will have to learn mostly on your own, because a lot of this stuff is just a couple pages on a text book now that are treated as things that "had their time" and we're "better™" now. In fact, great works of art are openly defaced by academia because they're "racist" and represent "colonialism", apparently. Abstract expressionism championed in their stead. https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/university-of-notre-dame-christopher-columbus-murals-trnd-style/index.html And as I said: No one goes to artschool wanting to paint like Kandinsky. They go because they want to become like the great painters of old. They are not getting this. Where I live, all the houses in this new(ish) bloc — I remember when they were built. If I wanted to build a half-timber house or something cool like that, I legally could not because the city planners are all modernists. The houses all had to be built with either stucco or siding, only a certain amount of brick on either sides of the garage, no more than about 3/4 meter high, and only certain colors allowed. So first off, it would not be even permitted to build a house that goes outside of those schematics. Even if it were, I could not find a construction company that could build something traditional around here because architects are not taught how to do it. Once again, old, ornamented buildings are delegated to being a part of architectural history that is now an irrelevant dinosaur. If there is a company out there who could build older, European houses in my area, they would specialized and charge tons of money. People in the media, academia and politics freaked out when Trump said he wants new government buildings in America to be built in the classical style, something which the Atlantic considers a "bizarre" desire and, of course, said was "fascist" https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/trumps-plan-make-architecture-classical-again/606286/ There is also, once again, the matter that in the past, why were artists, musicians, etc. not competing against abstract nonsense? Because everyone knows it was garbage and not worthy of being integrated into the architecture, hung up in art galleries or played in concert halls. Bad bards and street musicians were booed off their makeshift stages and told to practice more. So to say to the effect that the standards haven't "really" plummeted is just so obviously not true — we're surrounded by the truth of our decline every day — that it's kind of comical. You were worried about "authoritarianism" to uphold standards. Except the reality is: There is an authoritarian suppression of them.
  35. 1 point
    I wasn't familiar with Alma Deutscher, so I (naturally) had to go look her up. Turns out she's only 14/15 years old! This, in my opinion, significantly weakens the argument that her concert was sold out at Carnegie Hall simply because she writes in the galant style. I daresay many of the concertgoers were enticed to go because of her prodigy and couldn't have cared less what style she writes in. Most likely, the concert was sold out based on a combination of those two factors, though nobody can really tell which was more influential. In terms of "writing for the masses," I think this is where modern classical music has really dimmed its future. What I find most interesting is that classical music concertgoing is considered an elitist activity, deemed fit only for certain demographics, social classes, and—in particular—the rich. As proof of this, most people highlight the cost of attending such events. But tickets to live sporting events or pop concerts are no less expensive—most are significantly more expensive—and many people regardless of demographic, social class, or economic status have attended these. So the obvious question is why the stigma of elitism? I think this has to do with the grave the "classical music industry" has dug for itself. Classical composers by and large haven't written for the masses for at least a century, nor has this been the thrust of the industry/artform. The new products (i.e., compositions) have catered almost exclusively to those who identify as musical elites, and, as a result, the artform has become most out of touch with the society that financially supports it. (Now, I'm not saying that all examples of art in an artform must appeal to the masses, but I am saying that some of it has to if it is to remain viable.) This has been propounded by three generations of academicians acting as gatekeepers to the industry, who have probably only succeeded in creating an echo chamber of sorts: the number of people qualified enough to deem a piece of music as "worthy" is getting smaller and less diverse. Since the new works pander to the elites, the average concertgoer must settle for "reruns of timeless classics" or be forced to sit through an hour or more of music he neither understands nor appreciates. And pay a lot of money for it. I'm not sure if this model is sustainable. Certainly, many of us can feel the crisis that faces classical music today, as more and more local symphony orchestras close their doors permanently due to lack of public interest and subsequent funding. Could classical music ever really outcompete the film or pop music industries? Probably not, but we've done ourselves no favors by continually narrowing the target audience. If classical music is to make a comeback, I think we have to include the general public once again. We have to increase access. We have to allow them a voice in this process—and that voice might be with their feet and their wallet, which I think we are roundly ignoring. Please, do not misunderstand me. Classical music is an amoral entity, and the course it has taken is neither morally good nor bad; it simply is. My argument has everything to do with public perception and nothing to do with the inherent value of various styles of classical music. The general public just might adore atonal music, for example, but their opinions were never solicited (or were ignored if they were proffered), and over time this has led to the impression that classical music was "beyond them," written only for enjoyment by the musical elites. The current point on this trajectory of classical music might be interesting and oh-so avant garde, but all of that will matter very little when nobody remains to perform it. We will have killed the beast by snubbing the hand that feeds us. Sorry for the long post. I understand how touchy this subject can be and decided it was best to fully explain my position. I'm not really concerned with the past of classical music but with its future in our society. Curious to read others' thoughts about this.
  36. 1 point
    Hello everyone! I've been away from the forum for a couple of weeks, we all know times have been crazy... However, I had finished my Sextet for Winds and Piano some time ago, and wanted to share it here. As always, feedback is extremely appreciated. Thank you for listening 🙂
  37. 1 point
    Thank both of you. Specially Bradley Scarff, whom I answer I'm not currently trying to compose a fugue on every key, since in that I would perhaps need to invest years accomplishing and I'm not particularly interested on doing that at the moment, mainly because of the fact that I'm a bit biased towards certain keys and not so familiar with others, so I think it isn't yet my time for that. Thanks for your kind opinions, it really encourages me to continue and progress on these things!
  38. 1 point
    Personally I think that's quite a significant task (continuing the Bach-Shostakovich tradition of 24 preludes (and fugues as well perhaps?)), and I wish you the best of luck on it. The prelude itself was to me harmonically pleasing and calm, emulating well the character of C major and with relatively interesting modulation transitionings without getting out of its key signature. Well done! Looking forward to seeing more preludes of yours in each key!
  39. 1 point
    Fantastic, are you writing one for each key by they way JS Bach style? either way out of all of these fugues I've listened to this one is easily my favourite. There is a moment around bar 25-28 that was truly fantastic though I cannot quite put my finger on it. looking forward to the next one 😁
  40. 1 point
    Nice! I really like the chords used here. Transitioned really well into the legato/pedal section, which is something I always have trouble with
  41. 1 point
    Would an introspection piece be good if the "phobias" topic wins? Like show my dark psychological facet (depression, anxiety, aphaty, dichotomic thoughts, etc.). I guess it would work well because it is what I fear of myself.
  42. 1 point
    hey everyone happy to have some feedback on this piece i wrote the other day, any constructive critisism welcomed https://soundcloud.com/jacob-ticli/reunite
  43. 1 point
    Because the nature of these topics are so personal, it'd be great to have more judges this time around, since it's less technical!
  44. 1 point
    Artists have always pushed the envelope of their craft, and composers are no exception to that rule. We can surmise all day about "whence cometh these changes?" The bottom line is they stuck. Schönberg was an innovator, and such an influential one that three generations of composers have recognized his genius. Others have come after him, each taking his thought experiments further, or else devising their own. You or I may not like what his music sounds like, but we cannot deny his impact on Western classical music simply because we don't agree with his methods. We would do well to at least understand his methods and acknowledge them as the forerunners of modern Western classical music. People like Schönberg seem to happen only once a century or so. Perhaps classical music is due for its next major influence. Maybe that someone is you, or somebody else on this forum.
  45. 1 point
    Of course people are able to find their own voice. and I am aware music evolves. my wish is people write what they want over what academics push for them too write in the hopes of creating abstract art rather than art for art's sake. people should have the right to express themselves rather than be choked by having to explain their position in-depth. and explain why each note was placed where it was. I was asked by a teacher why I chose C minor for the key of the first movement of my concerto. I didn't have an answer, I just chose it because it's what I felt like. there was no abstract reason. I feel people are moving away from the "traditional style" because a lot of what can be composed has been perfected by various people. this of course does affect what people write Brahms was the first person to write a symphony some 50 years after Beethovens ninth if I remember correctly (don't quote me on that)
  46. 1 point
    I thank both of you for your criticism. It's really nice to see my "pieces" are seen as worth improving by others. In regards to Bradley Scarff's comment, the only thing I would say to "disagree" of sorts has to do with the fact that the fugue is virtually played by a machine, a soundfont engine, not a human. Which I think is partly the reason why it's difficult to distinguish individual voices to a great extent. Albeit that much syncopation in the alto voice perhaps wasn't so good in the end though. Also, the octave B's were intended to be a pedal note, and putting them in the bass wasn't any particular decision (even though I think I'm a bit biased towards unconsciously putting them in the bass). As for the parallels and voice crossing, to some extent I noticed them (at least the voice crossing, when the subject lies in the bass which is when it gets most noticeable), but I refused to change them due to the fact that they would ruin the countersubject and dissipate the harmony of the exposition. By the way, I'm not sure if those are the only parallels. Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking anyone to get to counting each parallel this fugue might have, I assume that would be just unbearable. Just wanted to know if Monarcheon just noticed those in the exposition or perhaps they might be all over the piece but counting them is thus not worth it. Thank both of you for your kind comments and appreciated criticism.
  47. 1 point
    Yeah, it's just literature. Artspeak meant to dazzle and confuse; to turn one against their instinctual reaciton. Indeed. I remember Alma popping up on some other forums and she triggered some serious boomer rage. The main criticism was the Greenbergian Jargon favorite of "it has nothing to say™" a meaningless statement unto itself, but these people can never seem to explain exactly how music is made better by these trite games of trying to figure out the puzzle of what the composer is "saying". The best part of that, I notice, is that it is generally the same people who believe "good and bad" are subjective, who will denounce composers as bad for not having enough "to say", because while quality is supposedly subjective, the "meaning" of a piece apparently is tangible, we're all just too dumb to see it, and therefore it must logically be objective... It's almost like those people are relativists when and where it's convenient for them
  48. 1 point
    In the end, you have to have an audience. Though my exposure to modern music is admittedly low, I did study music composition at the university level and was generally discouraged by the seeming attitude of modern composers (at least whom I was exposed to) where their style was more as a deliberate attempt to be iconoclastic rather than pushing music to evolve in a more natural way. To me, no one personifies this more than John Cage. When you're considered a great composer and your most famous work is 4'33" of silence, there is something seriously wrong. As another example, during my time in college, a pianist friend of mine was asked to premiere a new work for four hands by the composer in residence at the time. The work was for "prepared piano" so it involved various coins and other objects in the piano and the piece itself was virtually unplayable as written so she and her partner didn't really practice it much at all. They were understandably nervous when then the performance came and they completely mauled it to their admission. So when the composer came up to them after the performance, they were bracing themselves for being chewed out. Instead he commended them for a wonderful performance that was even better than he could have hoped and asked if they would be willing to premiere another piece in progress which they politely declined.
  49. 1 point
    Honestly they aren't that dance like but I wanted to do this. 😕 Feel free to leave feedback and comment. My internet is really slow. I should probably comment about something else but whatevs.
  • Create New...