Jump to content

dscid

Old Members
  • Content Count

    167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

dscid last won the day on May 31 2015

dscid had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

62 Excellent

About dscid

  • Rank
    Starving Musician
  • Birthday 01/27/1988

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. If you mean SATB 4 part harmony, and if you understand how to build chords, and scales within a key. Then you should be well off for understanding 4 part writing. I read Schoenberg's Theory of Harmony to really solidify my understanding, but now I just disregard it, after plenty of time following it. *shrugs* You might be able to find a good cheap copy at your local Half-Price Books. Otherwise, look online - there is plenty of information on this matter. So, just jump on in. Or, just ask here - open up your own thread. :) ::: If you meant 4 part fugal counterpoint...then it would still be good to know scales and chords :P. And decide if you want to sound like a specific period or not, and base your writing on the rules used in those times. Or, you could just sound like yourself, and follow your own ear instead. Again, ask for specifics - so we know where you are exactly, and can help you a little more specifically.
  2. dscid

    Stage Fright

    I second the part of knowing that you'll be nervous. That's a big step to accept. But, also visualization techniques can be pretty helpful. Try and vividly, calmly imagine all the things that can go wrong, and how you would handle each situation - see yourself confidently managing that moment. As well as in general, see yourself as a confident performer, and give yourself some kind words; after all you do know how to play, and you've invested a lot of time/energy to be able to do so. And, of course, it doesn't matter what they think of you, ultimately. And the sooner you believe that, the sooner you stop being afraid of a negative reaction for every subtle, minute mistake, that they probably didn't hear anyway. Or a collection of all these stressors from those subtle mistakes that result in you making a large, noticeable one. :P I was terrible at first, being thrown off by different room size/reverbs, etc - shy soloist, with your same issues with the guitar. But, it gets better - I tried to do as many shows in succession as I could, to get the stage fright out of the way, and by the end of the week I was so frustrated and had enough of the fright, that I overcame it. Though, I was breaking strings left and right, from picking nervously, hehe - and constant malfunctions with other equipment...sigh - what fun! :P I hope I helped a little.
  3. I never said that absorbing, and learning should be slow - only that some composers took many years to write a single work, which was deemed masterful; on the other hand, some wrote their masterpieces in a short amount of time. I was just trying to counter-balance, with my own experience in mind. As an amateur, I wrote very quickly. As you mature, I suppose there would be more stock held in ideals like quality over quantity. But, if you are a prolific genius, then by all means...:P To clarify, as an amateur, I agree you should get out as many ideas and as fast as you can...learn the good from the bad, while fine tuning and personalizing your process. Make your mistakes, and keep your head down, in the beginning. Just my .02 of personal experience, for what its worth. Good luck with the DAW, it is an amazing tool!
  4. Here is mine, nothing new =P Submitted, nonetheless, hehe. http://www.youngcomposers.com/music/5645/minimalistimpressionistic-theme-and-variations-for-piano/
  5. Having lots of ideas is the easy part - just look at many intermediate/novice works, they're often all over the place with ideas, or the opposite, and pretty minimalist. Can you develop the ideas? This can be in any aspect, not just in the harmonic or melodic, but textures, and evolving rhythms, etc - does not stop there. I believe the overall form is one of the strongest contenders for the subjective quality of a piece. Something can be full of great ideas, but still be rambling, and have boring moments, even still. So, you may feel in a rush to get your ideas down, it can also be important to SLOW down. =) Just thought I'd say that. May or may not work for you, heh. More on topic: I do not think the MIDI keyboard should be high on your to do list. In my experience, it is not necessary at all for DAW work. Seeing as you can manually input each note in a DAW, the same as you would in Finale/Sibelius, or the other notation software. I have a nice keyboard however, and of course, it's a great thing to have on hand, but I only use it to play, not to input. You will definitely want to get some good sound libraries, though, the DAW will most likely come with a pack of samples. Maybe not Reaper, though, if you're low on cash, maybe look into that, and save up for good libraries, if you care about how your music sounds in those regards, if not just stick with a notation software.
  6. Well if you have specific questions, you can use the Ask YC subforum, or even bring up a topic in the composer's headquarters. If you have a work that you would like reviews - well, everyone here is in that boat. So post a piece, somewhere there is a button for it. It will place your song, based on the selected category of your work. Nobody is strictly obligated to review you, or give constructive criticism. Though, being good-natured, and affording other people your reviews, then generally you are better off and someone will give you some words. Hope this helps. Welcome - I can tell you this place has benefited many people (relatively) over the years...
  7. Well, I just use a staff in CM/Am, and write in my accidentals...If it's highly chromatic, then there are plenty of accidentals anyway. But, if you must, check out this thread: http://www.youngcomposers.com/t7130/finale-guide-to-more-advanced-techniques/ The fifth post has your answer.
  8. Well, I don't hold motifs much different from a 'formula', both are developing ideas, in different ways. Not to generalize on this, but retrogrades and inversions are not exciting. How much thought does that take? After how many billions of composers have exercized it? And once you've heard the ideas, you only want to listen again to see if you missed any to analyze, in conventional music? How long does that last? While, I too generally listen to music critically, I have to have some music that I can just enjoy. Mozart hasn't pleased me in ages, save a few. Now I have a greater appreciation for color, and if minimalism can produce interesting ideas, I think that's fine. The helicopter quartet isn't that interesting to me. Quartets have played on trains too, for music videos =P Spacial differences aside, I think I would have preferred Xenakis compositionally, within the helicopters...I think he would have brought more out of it! That is not to say that I listen to that much Xenakis. *shrugs* Just an outpour of thoughts/opinions. Thanks for the sharing the link....Si.
  9. Mmmm, it isn't all about copy/paste...And, even still, Ken, a single note can be played many different ways, some instruments more than others - for great levels of expression and variety. I would not discount 'formulaic' minimalism, whereby the formula necessitates the music, and while 'sounding repetitive', it is on a long journey, slowly changing before your ears...It is all well and good to seek out their techniques, but I would advise you to think about it for yourself. Come up with your own 'minimalistic' ideas. These can be based on any aspect of the music, which will disregard the others, while it is in it's process of unfolding. Good luck, and please share any resources you may find =)
  10. Other forums have done this, and had willing participants. I don't see why everyone is so biased. So, he posts 30 second pieces, after 7 years of being a member here, and his descriptions of the titles of his works take longer to read, than to listen to the music itself, and he tries to state profundities in his status updates...Am I missing something here? Oh yeah, he does not listen to advice :P Delusions of grandeur or not, so what? It doesn't bother me, why does it bother everyone else? Anyways, no, I'm not willing to participate either =) but, geez, everyone is completely rude to him, and I've never seen him be rude, or hold any of you in contempt, after all your slander. This forum is going through quite a dry spell...suffering a slow death, it seems. Sucks to see what little activity there is, to be of this nature. Especially, when he tries to propose something for the community to be involved in. Ahem..."can't we all just get along?" and be suppportive? :dunno: I can't wait to see who feels the need to bring on the hate, and shoot me down! This is exciting! :shiftyninja:
  11. Oh, you can tell me what energy is 'made of', can you? Not just it's tendencies? And, my last statement is true, depending on the context. The context is that of a universal unknown, something that can not be agreed upon. Listening should be a neccesity.
  12. And, if you hate those, why would you let them slip into your own writing: so, I guess you could say, then they are affecting you by choosing what NOT to write...??
  13. Thanks for the suggestion for Haas - I really liked some of the ideas, and and some were mediocre, but it definitely has it's moments of nice orchestration! :happytears:
  14. Eh, scientists know that they/we don't know what energy is, and we can only relate to it's many forms mathematically. Furthermore, we don't know all of the types of energy. "Modern physics has discovered one of the greatest things ever discovered, and that is: matter is energy". And theoretically, matter is a projection of our consciousness, which is also energy. Do your own research, as I'm sure your skeptical blood is boiling. To say "show me on a diagram of the human body" is silly, given that we don't even know what energy is, putting so much faith into something that is meant to disprove itself, especially when you're referring to a part of the study that they have yet to understand. Loosely speaking, the point is that consciousness is unlikely to arise from classical properties of matter (the more we understand the structure and the fabric of the brain, the less we understand how consciousness can occur at all), which are well known and well testable. But Quantum Theory allows for a new concept of matter altogether, which may well leave cracks for consciousness, for something that is not purely material or purely extra-material. Of course, the danger in this way of thinking is to relate consciousness and Quantum only because they are both poorly understood: what they certainly have in common is a degree of "magic" that makes both mysterious and unattainable... On the other hand, it is certainly true that all current neurobiological descriptions of the brain are based on Newton's Physics, even if it is well known that Newton's Physics has its limitations. First of all, Newton's Physics is an offshoot of Descartes division of the universe in matter and spirit, and it deals only with matter. Secondly, neurobiologists assume that the brain and its parts behave like classical objects, and that quantum effects are negligible, even while the "objects" they are studying get smaller and smaller. What neurobiologists are doing when they study the microstructure of the brain from a Newtonian perspective is equivalent to organizing a trip to the Moon on the basis of Aristotle's Physics, neglecting Newton's theory of gravitation. No wonder most neurobiologists reach the conclusion that Physics cannot explain consciousness, since they are using a Physics that 1. was designed to study matter and leave out consciousness and that 2. does not work in the microworld. Not surprisingly, it has been claimed that all current neurobiological models are computationally equivalent to a Turing machine. Well, this is not entirely off-topic. Many artists describe trancelike states when creating something -> this is especially true for those who wish to represent the divine, and surrender to it, while at work. Sacred Art. They admit these things; many of the great masters, and masters you've never heard of. I don't want to get into a derailed debate...I'm simply stating that it doesn't have to be entirely conscious as seems to be the prevailing presumption here. Someone who keeps an open mind and open ear to all things, has a greater chance of knowing the 'truth', whereas those who are dismissive, and without respect to others, are willingly boxing themselves inside a box that it utterly beyond their understanding. The answers to your life just might not always be on that diagram :-\ *shrugs*
×
×
  • Create New...