Jump to content


Old Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About Beginner

  • Rank
    Starving Musician
  • Birthday 11/01/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Stone Harbor, New Jersey
  • Occupation
    library volunteer
  • Interests
    opera, the outdoors, the beach
  • Favorite Composers
    Ravel, Wagner, Richard Strauss, Howard Hanson, Stravinsky, William Walton, John Williams
  • My Compositional Styles
    ermmm....paleo-romantic, neo-romantic, impressionistic?
  • Notation Software/Sequencers
    finale 2008 (d'oh)
  • Instruments Played
  1. I used archive 18-stave.....it's kind of difficult for piano music, but for an ensemble I've found it to be the best. It looks good, feels good, etc.
  2. I love the liebestod, and all of Tristan.......I studied the score a lot and learned a lot from it, the power of the harmonies is immense.
  3. lol, when I read this post I almost thought it was by me and I had forgotten about it!!! Daphnis and Chloe is THE BEST....in terms of sheer beauty and opulence, I can't think of anything else that comes close..........the richness and power of the harmonies, the orchestration that seems to mimic a forest coming to life before your very eyes (or ears?).....it is unmatched. I do love Mother Goose though, that is also some of Ravel's most powerful music (particularly what he added for the ballet)...honestly, Daphnis and Chloe would be what I would strive for as a composer, if I were a hard-core composer.
  4. Well, I didn't say I was writing like Beethoven - I personally have much greater interests than Beethoven's music. But I guess the difference is between those of us who want societal recognition (or recognition by a portion of society) and those of us who are content not to play that game. Also, I think that writing in or copying the styles of the past, to the best that you can replicate them, is the best way to develop skill, and is also an indicator of skill. It might be unfulfilling for listeners who want to hear something completely original, but it could also be of value to some who only wish ______ had written more, or are looking for the music to have certain qualities that they like, regardless of who it was and when it was written. IMO there's an infinite amount to be said in each style.
  5. Hmm....According to Nancy Bricard in her editions of Ravel's piano music, Ravel said that "If, when copying others, you remain yourself, it's only because you have something to say". Ultimately, someone with a truly creative impulse can only create what is within them to create, if that happens to be in a Beethovinian style, then that's just how it is. If you think that's not creative because of some intellectual ideology of how people should compose, I doubt anyone whose primary concern is their own imagination would care - someone who has inspiration knows they have it and can feel it in their heart and soul - it is not measurable or capable of being intellectualized.
  6. I should say that when I spoke of talent, I was using it as a synonym for ability, not about something that is necessarily inborn (though I'm sure the debate over this particular will rage on).
  7. Well, talent and success are two different things. Our society and the world at large, generally speaking, is very "yang"-oriented......by that I mean, it is dominated by and most easily navigated by a certain kind of personality. Other people who are lacking in the traits our society tends to value, and usually in whom the personality has turned inward to a considerable degree, will of course have a much harder time dealing with the world and possibly be too afraid to act in it, and by virtue of this tendency be less successful. I don't think this equates to the dominant type being more talented. Ease in moving about our world, a certain degree of which is a requisite for career success, and talent in various crafts, are two different things. Particularly in something where imagination and self-development are tantamount, like music, the profoundly inward-turned person possibly could have more "talent".
  8. Thank you for the warm wishes - though, I'll admit, it's kind of hard to achieve the last one when you keep responding to my posts.
  9. But why not? Being passionate about music in general, in the literal sense, would entail liking all music. If you look at some of the well-known composers of the past, and sometimes the present, very often they were scathingly critical of styles outside their own (even though, compared to the variety that exists today, they might not seem so disparate - e.g. Schumann vs. Liszt/ Wagner). Clearly they were not, or are not, passionate about music in general. I suppose we don't have to take "being passionate about music in general" so literally - but still, I believe that many of the great creative types are more passionate about their inner vision, about the contents of their own imagination that they find worthy enough of manifesting, than anything else that pertains to their craft. Since there is too much music out there for a single person to imbibe, one must pick and choose what to immerse one's self in, and if you have a specific creative vision, you are likely to choose (and be passionate) about that which has a similarity to, or can most effectively contribute to, that inner vision.
  10. Well, a fair point, but there's also the fact that the composers I mentioned were critical of their respective comparisons - clearly they chose not to write in those idioms because of something resembling an active dislike. And I also think that, even though one might be an inspired and skilled composer, does not mean one has reached some maximum level of technical ability which grants comprehension of every style......I have doubts, for example, that Tchaikovsky could have composed like Franck if he had wanted to. All this is to add to my point that I don't believe having an intellectual understanding of, and ability to use, as many different styles as possible, including those far outside what one is inspired by, is a necessity for a skilled composer. I think such a path entails a sacrifice of depth for breadth, and personally, I would rather go with depth. I would rather be really good at writing in two or so styles, than mediocre at writing in a lot of different ones.
  11. Well, it's largely because of intellectual curiosity that people are able to get degrees in the sciences and many of the humanities, whereas in something such as music, passion is often more of a motivation than anything intellectual. Just from the fact that most people have musical likes and dislikes, and that composers choose to write in certain ways and not others. Debussy would not have been happy writing like Grieg, Boulez would not be content to write as Stockhausen did (based on their comments). If they just liked writing music in general, they would be perfectly happy to compose in any style. Secondly, composers, more so than performers, are people who make choices. Choices are decided based on preferences, and preferences amount to finding one thing more worthy than another. I think the emphasis on preference and decisions inherent in the craft of composition, makes it difficult to coincide with liking music as a general phenomenon - which, in the literal sense, would entail liking all music by virtue of being music. But that's just my viewpoint, as my name implies I'm just a tadpole in the musical universe.
  12. But like I said, many composers aren't passionate about music in general, or about writing music in general.
  13. Well, intellectual curiosity in itself (which is what you are calling "learning") is not worth anything in my view, in spite of being valued by our society for reasons that I do not believe have been meditated on seriously. Maybe it has a purpose in a utilitarian field like engineering or chemistry, but with regards to something that has nothing to do with utility, like music composition - I don't think it's best to take the same approach. You can always learn about various idioms any time you choose, but passion can't really be ignored - it pretty much demands and commands one's attention in the present moment, thereby hindering efforts to learn about things outside of itself.
  14. I sometimes say the octatonic scale is my favorite, so I voted octatonic .....but they all have their place.
  15. Well, that isn't necessarily true - someone can instruct you just in the specific idiom(s) you want to learn if they have a truly thorough understanding of it.
  • Create New...