Prometheus

Most people in classical music are pushed by their parents and start at young ages. But why can't you start at an 18+ age? Starting with music altogether at the age of 18 with the goal of becomming a professional may be tricky though. But there are still examples of people who try it and succeed.

So even more challenges. So he needs up to pick the language of music along the way also. Well, I would think that viewing the scene that needs music is a must. Or at least something that resembles it. You are creating a 3d animation? If so then you could send him a bare-bone version, right? There is not only the problem of inspiration and a feeling for what kind of music the scene needs, but also a practical problem. If you don't know how long the scenes are going to be exactly then you also don't know how long the music is going to be. Or where music changes along with the development of the scenes. If one of my friends asks me to write music for his movie/animation I would really make a point out of her/him completing at least a version of the scenes that need music before I write a note. I can't write properly without seeing the scenes, at least I would imagine. Of course things can be discussed and moods pointed out but not much more imo. I think you should send him the storyboard of each scene with the idea behind the scenes in terms of how it develops the storyline and how it should influence the viewers. Of course also other information about the plot, setting, characters, themes or whatever is important for this whole project. You could also watch some movies or animations and see that the approach one can have to scoring a movie/animation can be very different. Some cartoons have really 'descriptive' music that can be more of a sound effect than music, actually. Some movies have really light music that you barely noticeble, often for strings only. Some movies have thematic songs(and I mean songs) or themes marking important points in the plot. You can go a lot of ways here.

I don't want to add to to confusion but a carol is a song, (in the sense that it is sung). From my dictionary: Carol (KAIR-ruhl) English Medieval strophic song with a refrain (called a burden) repeated after each stanza. Now, erroneously, any Christmas song is called a carol. Since we are composers, please lets use the technical meaning of these words. It would be nice to know if the contenders are supposed to write a carol with a christmas setting/flavor/mood, a christmas song or a christmas piece. I am trying to find if that what is known as a 'christmas carol' is still a (proper) carol. The wikipedia page says it is either a song or hymn with christmas lyrics. So not a carol at all? So, are most famous 'chistmas carols' technically real carols? (Though later on the wiki page becomes unclear again, yeah I know, but there seems to be a disagreement or at least a confusion there). The criteria also need to be rewriten in proper language. Also, it should mention that the piece is supposed to be a vocal piece with a christmas setting (or whatever the definition is going to be). From the criteria: I think the writer here meant with 'carol' that it sounds like a christmas song. As it stands now I will have to withhold points if the piece isn't a carol, or a bit like a carol. About the lyrics, if the 'christmas carol' idea is going to hold I must assume lyrics are part of the work. But this causes problems. I am not able to judge the quality of literature. And what if someone writes the lyrics in spanish, japanese, german etc, that would be even more of a problem. But matching notes and words is an important part of composing a song/hymn/carol/etc. So I guess I would suggest that the piece needs lyrics but that the literary part of the lyrics is totally ignored. So they don't need to be original either. But one should be able to sing the notes and voice the words properly. I don't want to force anything, but these are my logical conclusions. I will gladly accept and follow the criteria to the letter while judging.

I guess this is difficult. I assume that this person has no experience with writing a film score. Surely the intentions of writing music for a movie are very different from those of an art music composer. The composer is not creating music itself for the sake of music itself. But the composer will try to enhance the effects of the movie through music. This is going to ask different skills from a composer. If the composer has experience with programmatic music and orchesteral music then it is going to be much easier than for a piano composer interested in absolute music. You can't ask Chopin to write a excellent film score for example. He would have to learn that first. Maybe you need to work really close together on this. You will need to learn about music and he will need to learn about movies. Communication is going to be difficult. I don't see an easy way.

It is acceptable to vary the latter part of the subject in a fugue. Of course this is not a display of great skill. It will be a sacrifice and your goal will be a perfect subject. If your subject is going to be imperfect you better gain something else as compensation. At least in the exposition. If there are multiple expositions of the same subject I guess in the second one or third one the rules can be lessened a bit. And in the development, incomplete subjects are common. An incomplete subject is better than none at all. Also, a tonal subject as opposed to a real subject isn't really considered a imperfection but just a choice. At least these are my views.

I haven't listened yet, but Artisimo, surely don't give up fast, which you already said you won't. Its going to take a lot of failures for anyone to learn to compose. Let alone a fugue. But a tip for getting a polyphonic feel; have 16th notes in one voice while the other has half notes, then switch it around. Also, in general, having short note values in the bass will give a big constrast with monophonic music.

Nineteen? When I read this topic title I would expect a 50+ age...

I though I added a message a few days ago. Well let me do it now. I am not interested in writing a song. Add me as a judge instead.

Well, if we are using new melodic material, how will it sound like a christmas carol?

Uuh, I didn't say I am going to write something for sure. But I may to try to create a big polyphonic texture with my favorite christmas melodies. Plus I have a tendency for not finishing works. Also I have no interest in winning or competing. I am just interested in writing :) But, I am a bit confused. Christmas carol, so this is supposed to be a real carol? Really, I don't know how the average 'christmas carol' sounds like and what it is. Sure, I know lots of christmas tunes. But I am sure those aren't all carols.

I was thinking about writing a Sorabji-like piano work using as much christmas melodies as possible. But that will horribly fail at the criteria. :D It would be barely playable, listenable and most melodies would be unrecognisable... I might try just as well, for fun.

Ok this is what I have halfway through. The last part is just bits I already had for use somewhere, added to the finished part. Click. Any tips on development? I never really know where to go, which road to take and none reveal themselves to me after finishing the exposition. I think this subject is too dominant and recognisable to really milk like I did. But I do want to get it in the texture someway. I guess I'll add new thematic material with the subject in diminution when I get time to rewrite this piece. Any suggestions on using canrizans in a fugue development? Or any examples? And could someone give me your personal comments and opinions on useage of cadenses anywhere in a fugue? Fugue_in_Cm_v.08.MID

You mean how to voice chords. I don't know. I also wanted to know how a melody is harmonized and sung by a choir. Surely they don't sing in octaves. I never laid my hands on a nice piece of sheet music for choir. I guess buying sheet music of your favorite choir piece will help.

I think Penderecki's seventh symphony is quite huge. Heavy on brass, extra special low horns, extended percussion three choirs(?) and four solo voices.

Wow this topic is growing fast. I haven't had time to listen to any of the newly posted fugues but good job at writing them. I worked some bit on my other compositions. But I think I will have some time later and I will force out something.

Hehe, I said the exact same thing. ;) This seems to be kind of futile. I think english is also not his primary language, resulting in confusion.

Music written by our contemporaries. Where to draw the border is tricky, as always. But surely there is now a difference between modern and contemporary music. Surely Prokofiev isn't a contemporary composer. He has been dead for more than 50 years. If they died more than 20 years ago they aren't contemporary to me. Of course that has something to do with my age. If I would be 60 I may have said 30 or 40. If they are still alive I am sure it is pretty clear. But a composer like Sorabji, who died 1988. I am not sure. Some people use '20th century music' and '21th century music (aka contemporary)'. That is pretty clear. But that makes contemporary a pretty small space, which explains why they call it 21th century. Surely a work composed in 1999 is just as contemporary as a work written in 2002. So maybe contemporary is somewhere inbetween. I think I would prefer: Modern 1910-1980 Contemporary 1981-present But maybe 1970 or 1990 instead of 1980. Doesn't really matter that much. Rachmaninoff was still writing romantic music after 1910 for example. But from a technical perspective there is no real difference between modern and contemporary music. Maybe that it is now allowed not to be experimental, reactionist, inventive, etc.

Your definition is puzzling. Firstly, tension. Surely there is music without tension or with very little tension. Modal music has no harmonic tension. Indian music stays the same harmonicly though the whole piece. Serial music each note is equal and so there is no harmonic and also no melodic tension. There could be rhythmic tension though. But why use this word? Tension isn't the point. Organisation is. Physical and percieved? Why those two? Don't they at least overlap? You can't percieve anything that isn't physical. Why not leave them both out. I don't see how adding them makes a difference. Secondly, meaningful illusions. Illusions? Meaningful? Huh? Really this does not make any sense. To me music in itself has no meaning and is never an illusion. That only the listener can identify with? Identify with what purpose? Do you mean relate? Accept? I don't see how idenifying can have any meaning in this context except as 'recognition'. And then the listener? Why add this bit? Do you want to leave out the performer or the composer? Or do you want to narrow things out to listening only? So why not looking at the score? A score of music isn't music? But if you mean 'accept', surely this has no place in a definition of music but rather it is a view about how one should go about judging music. If I am going to judge music wrongly, by not identifying with it properly, according to your opinion, this does not change the music into non-musical sound, obviously. The only part that makes sense is the tension part. But surely it is ill placed for music doesn't require tension. The others, I don't get that at all. Maybe I am going about this the wrong way. Also, you start with "Music makes use of" So how can this be a definition? Surely tension does play a great part in many forms of music and other arts. But surely it is not essential at all, let alone it's essence.

How can I like carnatic music and hate pop music while I am an European that has never been in Asia and has rarely met someone from Asia? Surely culture is irrelevant from musical perspective. The differences are extremely insignificant. People just stick to their traditions, regardless of musical and technical matters.

I don't know what happened here but I am just informing you guys I am still working on mine. I am usually horribly slow but after rewriting the exposition 20 times I am kind of stuck at this point. I tried something but I had to delete because it was no good. I am always so slow, I hate it. Well, I also have two other fugues kind of stuck after the exposition. The Baroque Enthusiast, you wrote yours amazingly fast. Some really good moments. Same for J. Lee Graham's, you added some nice new thematic material. It's long enough. Maybe not in time but in measures. I noticed one thing, I set my speed to 104 BPM while most of you picked something a lot faster for the Cm subject. When I look at both of those works I get the feeling I don't have the natural talent and that I am too critical of what I write. Ack. Well I will keep on it. BTW, I didn't meant to say that my exposition is really great but that I really liked the subject.

I have always found the idea that knowledge blocks creativity uncomprehensible (strange). Theory gives you all these different techniques to write out an idea. It even activates creativity. If music didn't have music theory I wouldn't be interested in it. Some of the best composers didn't feel the urge to do something new: Reger, Brahms

EKen132, you didn't just make a mokery at atonal music. You made a mokery at poorly organised music. You have different complex time signatures. You have no thematic material. You jump registers, extreme differences in dynamics, etc. Good atonal music doesn't ignore all principles of music. They actually become more important because you do away with tonal organisation. It's very hard to judge atonal music fairly. The lack of tonal organisation is very confusing and disorientating. Also, most of these composers don't just stretch tonal organisation but also other types of organisation. This is probably the reason why you assosiate the strange things you did in a piece that was supposed to be about atonality. You could also make a piece that is a mockery of tonal music. Maybe I should do that. I know this composer that wrote a 12 minute 40 seconds fugue that has only 74 measures. Yeah thats a lot of seconds per measure. His subject is one measure and is repeated 72 times in the whole piece. Plus this happens in all kinds of typical baroque contrapuncal structuring. Actually the music isn't truely atonal because it is not 12 tone and does apply cadences at some point. It's just music with such a high amount of borrowed chords/notes that it becomes tonally so disoriented that there is no tonic to speak of. Almost the whole piece is 'roving harmony'. The same composer also wrote fugues of 50 minutes, extremely complex. The border between music by composers like Reger, Busoni, Liszt, Scriabin and truly atonal music is very blurry. Saying that atonal music needs to be serial or twelve tone seems not that far off.

Of course they do. But do you mean that when a definition can only be defined by another definiiton no definition is possibe? If not, physics gives a pretty clear definition of all three. I don't see the problem. Surely those terms are much less debateble as music since music is foremost a human concept and the other three are physical phenomenon. But what do you mean when you say they are debatable? Surely everyhing that is not obviously and bluntly wrong is debatable. So the fact that this is debatable is a good thing about this definition.

Music is sound organised in terms of melody, harmony and rhythm. Applying this definition everything you want to call music is music and everything you don't is not. At least, I have not been able to find an example where this definiiton fails.

Actually, order can be pretty objective. The subjective element is: What kind of organisation is most important. Obviously they aren't all equally experienced by humans. Take Cages ASLSP. This piece is so slow any organisation is irrelevant to the persons observation. It's not percievable. Another example could be Shakespeare. Lets say we play a tape with Shakespeare in morse. A person not knowing morse won't be able to hear the difference between shakespeare in morse and random short and long blips. One will soon notice the blips aren't natural but ordered. But to know if there is a code hidden inside, that's hard to figure out. If we hear Shakespeare in a foreign language we won't know what to make of it. If its binary decoded by using some kind of 32 bit key it will take supercomputers years to figure it out. The good thing about music is that everyone seems to be born with knowledge about the 'language' of music. In the west we only have 12 notes. We also have those notes on only 1 dimention, namely time. This comes from using organisation in terms of melody, harmony and rhythm. It may be hard to know which kind of harmonic organisation is more ordered than the other, but what harmony is and what order is is pretty clear. I do remember someone claiming that people who enjoy atonal music imagine organisation and get enjoyment from their own imagination, inspired by the sound. I thought that was a funny thing because one could say all music works like that. Obviously the one of human experience. The universe tells us what order is, the human brain knows what kind of order is important. Yes. But that is because this kind of order cannot be percieved. We can perceive melodic, harmonic and rhythmic order. Thats why those are in the definition of music. I am not saying that this definition of music is 'right'. I am saying it is the best. What do you mean? Your comments on aliens viewing our activities have me thinking about communication and language again. Our race of man could be considered as a singular entity, having it's own perceptions of the world and such. But as long as we do not know any other sentient races, we shall be ultimately be "left in the dark", as the blind/deaf man is. Perhaps we are "colorblinded" to certain facts in the universe that can only be revealed to us through an external eye. Maybe all of our different languages and music may be seen by others as an indistinguishable whole - or as an intricately organized process resembling a great piece of music itself, with enjoyable melodies, harmonies, counterpoint, structure, etc. Or maybe not. But who are we to say :lol:? I don't know if that was an attempt at putting words in my mouth, but if so, please don't. I have in no way intended for such a disposition. I do, however, feel that we can't explain it without reservations, for reasons that I've gone through above. Heck, that probably even applies things that we supposedly do create (after all, what does it mean to "create" something?). About your last bit. Yes, if we ever meet a totally different race then that will help answer what humans actually are. Sure, we can compare ourselves to animals but that is not very satisifying. It is often said that humans are terrible creatures. But we might be very peaceful compared what is out there. It will also give increadible insights in how our brain 'humanises' the way we perceive realitiy. But it is very unlikely to happen. About all music and all languages being very similar. We already know this. Take a human face. They all are almost the same, though we perceive them as totally different. Have you ever heard people say that all asians or all africans look alike? This is an illusion. We just focus on the very subtle differences. Actually, there is also a brain disorder that makes it impossible for that person to recognise faces, even those of partner and children. There is also one that makes perceiving music impossible. And about those wild childs. When they don't get enough language exposure until they are 13 then in general language in their brain seems to turn off, completely and permanently. I may be a bit harsh, aggresive or authoritive in discussions, its nothing personal and I am quite capable to reflect on this. I had to post this in two parts, for some reason. My quotes wouldn't turn on and I was left in the dark as to why but I figured it out. Seems there is a cap on them.