Jump to content

Rkmajora

Old Members
  • Content Count

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Rkmajora

  • Rank
    Music Enthusiast
  • Birthday 09/18/1989

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
  2. Best thing to do, in my opinion, is to come up with a melody that is not subservient to harmony. That is, melodies come in all kinds of interesting and original forms. Harmonic progressions in their basic outline are often what are simplistic, so you usually don't want to limit something such as a melody with something simplistic, unless you're trying to work in this really special ingenious chord in just the right spot of a harmony, which can and usually should be done dependent of both harmony and melody, that is thinking in both terms. I've written harmonies and then melodies on top of them before, but it seems to confine the melody to where it lacks flair, originality, taste, all qualities etc. Since I believe melody is the most important thing in a piece, and most difficult to create a good one, then its always best to start writing a piece with one in mind. And then one more advice on this part is to try not to change the melody once you begin to write a harmony underneath it, say if you find a better harmony. You're 9 times out of 10 going to hear the melody better, and you want to use harmony to embellish it. If you find an alternative melody which sounds rather exciting, for instance 'first I will use the main melody, but on the second round, shock the listener with this change' then I believe this could, but doesn't have to be, more dependent on a harmonic change. An example where the melody changes but the harmony doesn't is Adam's 'Oh Holy Night.'
  3. Ah yes, isn't that the beauty of composing? You hear a magnificent piece and can break the whole thing apart, and reconstruct it in your mind and out on paper (the computer.)
  4. Same. I'm all for recognition where its due, but I don't think that art computes with either money, copyrights or censorship. To a certain point, in terms of getting initial project money as well as some fan-based money, it does, but a real artist doesn't need a lot of money, and if they were to complain about that, if say implemented in reality, then I seriously doubt they're in it for the art. I mean, if more people really cared about music, I think current law aside, we would be in agreement that fame/recognition is tons more important than copyrights, money or censorship, but adding business into the mix seems rather detrimental to the quality of everyday listening. That's just the opposite of what the every day businessman thinks unfortunately. There's a whole other side to music, past when someone is recognized for their personal achievement, where copying should be embraced in terms of both listening and composing, in my opinion. I doubt a real artist would quit composing out of boredom that their paycheck is not getting recognized enough, however I do think that an artist should have the responsibility to embrace people using and reworking their music. It just feels so natural to me, and they want to censor that. It's the equivalent of someone changing up a poem to fit the mood and not being able to read it in public. I don't know where people get the idea that something like that is a disgrace to the original artist, but that's what a lot of tradition is based on, and in no way does it influence the nature of creativity. Money? No way.
  5. You are right. It is very limited, but fun to acknowledge in any case.
  6. You may be familiar with the four main psychological temperaments, phlegmatic, sanguine, melancholic, and choleric. Have you tried to apply them to yourself, and your music as a composer? Don't worry about the parenthesis too much: Phlegmatic = Relaxed (also noted to have ignorance) Sanguine = Happy (noted to have imperfection) Melancholic = Sad (noted to hold truth through conflict) Choleric = Angry (noted to be critical) What if you were to apply one or two of those to yourself, or what you prefer to compose... What would you chose? Then tell why you would chose that and why it fits with your compositional style, or at least try to reason it out a bit. You can have blends, like mainly relaxed with a touch of sad, would be called Phlegmatic/Melancholic. These blends match up with theoretical personality types. Give it a shot. My music: It's hard to deduce most of my pieces to happy or sad, though many of them are indeed a bit sadder, yet lively. Lively can either mean sanguine or choleric, and I'd have a hard time choosing either one, so I will have to say my music is overall: Melancholy.
  7. To sum up this thread: The limit of subjectivity is that of which its possibility is no longer perceived to be considered a nuance. In English. There's you, and there's the world. Get the crap out from behind this media wall and explore the realms of sound if you want answers. Discussing here is nothing practical.
  8. I think it's pretty easy to design a computer that can replicate alike sounding pieces, especially solo pieces. I could easily program something like that for inspiration. I don't want to though. And let's say by new neural networks you mean something randomly branched off the ordinary. That is quite doable, but advancement in that technology WILL pose dangerous. Let's just stay in the copy-cat realm of computers for now. We don't need any purposeful bugs. I like where we are.
  9. Heh. I once mentioned to my friend that Claire de Lune reminds me of perfection. Although not an implication that the piece itself is good (or bad), in which perfection would be quite a lousy translation on my behalf if I had implied it. Ibert, Milhad, Poulenc. Great choices.
  10. Why yes. I have so often, but what I've realized is that the marvel of the piece is reserving a possibility in my subconscious. So it's not really as "great" as I thought it was, because it's only a possibility. Most people don't see these kinds of possibilities. Because you do, you are unique. Its part of inspiration. It is what lingers in the unique individual and what can be often forgotten, but never really forgotten. It is "the dream." From my subjective standpoint, it is intuition.
  11. Hi. Welcome back Rkmajora. Not which composer himself is happiest or even which composer's music makes you the happiest, but which composer's music do you think portrays utter happiness at its finest potential to be happy? You nor the composer are necessarily emoting ":w00t:" but the music should be.
  12. You're right, but there is little difference between thinking and knowing in literary cognitives. And I must say DOFTS has a good point along with mine ;)
  13. Beethoven is winning with 8 votes. In 2nd place we have Bach with 7 votes. And in 3rd place, Bartok with 5 votes. Keep them composer reviews coming, because no one can judge a famous composer better than an amateur one can.
  14. Haha. My avatar is pretty suitable then is it? Most people who can predict the future correctly study the past. Yes, history is something more than a bunch of names and dates! (hint: we have patterns. the world is full of them) Though I couldn't tell you when the world is going to end. I'm not Oprah. Alright I am not saying Spielberg or Lucas films suck on a worldwide basis. I'm referring to the new films with bogus composers.
×
×
  • Create New...