Jump to content

Ken320

Members
  • Content Count

    881
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    85

Everything posted by Ken320

  1. I see that the thread was moved here. It is a deep topic. For your interests there is a lot more on youtube by people that use both as a matter of course. And the methods are many. One thing you might look into is Rewire. I, myself, don't use it.
  2. However you interpret your future, let your musical growth be organic. Don't force it and don't bend to the demands of others, unless they're paying you. (😉)
  3. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Valerio. I don't use Sibelius for playback, only notation. And I doubt that you will find sound sets that have sound design and effects. I used synthesizers and samplers that were recorded into my digital audio workstation (DAW). There are some very good ones out there that are free or low priced. You should familiarize yourself with these. They are basically maulti-track tape recorders. Many composers use these in conjunction with notation and there are two approaches (that I know of). Importing a Sibelius score into a DAW as a MIDI file, or importing from a DAW into Sibelius. Both are extra work and both have benefits and drawbacks. Yes, it is complex. But it's doable and it's worth it. There are some good Sibelius forums on Facebook as well as forums for DAW's. Good luck!
  4. I think you've demonstrated a useful technique here, especially with the long gestures and harmonics. As was noted, it is more atmospheric than melodic. But it is not altogether without melody.
  5. I think Jean is irritated that he is forced to build the damn road before he can drive on it. We are composers, right? Not Civic Engineers. I think that this demand upon us is overblown in our minds. And perhaps we are too focused on tonality as being the one thing that we use to define ourselves as artists. But there are so many other ways. I hear great music all the time from artists who are not bound by this neurotic demand. It's in good pop music, good jazz, good multi media work, and good so called serious work.. But the key word is good. I cannot tell you what good means. You already know what good means. These artists use a broad spectrum of aesthetics: rhythm, rhyme, emotion, new instrumentation, electronics, new combinations of established forms and many other manner of the elements of music to entice the public. But an unrealistic focus on the necessity a new tonality at all costs can be seen as building the road instead of driving on it. In other words, a diversion and a hindrance. Something that is holding you back as a composer because it represents that big, loud irritating voice in the back of your head. Be original! Be original! (just shut up and let me compose) I agree with Luis that eclecticism is the way forward. Leonard Bernstein said as much before he died. I mean, if you were a chef would you be satisfied with cooking only pasta, or would you rather cook everything?
  6. I like that you used cadences to lengthen a line or spin off new ones. Was that a topic in this book?
  7. Thanks for listening. This piece was fairly restrained in terms of material, but there were a lot of voices and they are moving all the time. So I had to manage relative degrees of dissonance while keeping a meaningful line going. When the texture gets thicker and the voices increase, there are clashes, as you say, but they are just temporary dissonances. They are acceptable because there are voices moving alongside them that repair them and they are all moving in and out of dissonance. But the harmonic progression, which was fairly simple, was firmly established before the voices pile up. That was necessary I think.
  8. Hello, fellow composers. I have the next few months free to compose so I started on a project called "Hither and Yon." It will be a collection of orchestral "songs." They may be from disparate genres, styles and instrumentation, I don't know. Wherever the wind takes me, I suppose. I'd like to get at least 7 songs and here is the first. I will post scores, but not right away. Thanks and leave a comment or two if you like ...
  9. In the context of this thread I am saying that there are different types of analysis. I am making the case that a comprehensive analysis - of anything - is of value to us. Why did Bernstein bother himself with such efforts? Because he was good at it, and because he was a generous man who wanted to share his knowledge and passion with others. Did he talk in minutiae? Of course. When you deliver the capstone lecture of an eighteen hour series you necessarily have to first get in the weeds, right? Stravinsky had come a long way since the days of Le Sacre over the course of his life, and he had to deal with the same musical problems as other composers of his time. I'm just saying that this particular lecture transcends the minutiae. By analyzing Stravinsky's music through the mask analogy, he offers a salient vision for future composers who may be troubled that there's nothing new under the sun anymore except for serialism and the self inflicted death of deconstruction. Was this of value to Stravinsky? No. Why should it? It's beside the point. It is for us, and at this point the minutiae becomes rather interesting. So, to me, anything done well in the field of music is interesting.
  10. I mentioned Bernstein's analyses of music as being exemplary because of his comprehensive, language-based approach. He uses a tiered series of lessons, each building on the last, to get to the final lesson in his Harvard Lecture Series, which is The Future Of Music. And if you listen to this three hour Final Lecture (and I hope that you do) you will see why he concluded with Stravinsky and his methods as more adaptable to future composers than Schoenberg. He talks about Stravinsky's "masking" technique, which is an abstraction that allowed him to re-assess and re-imagine music in a way that Schoenberg's restrictive formalism could not do. It's about the concept of "indirection." Stravinsky is always one step removed from the music. It's complex, but it's the best, most accurate description of Stravinsky's music that I know of. It's unclear whether this masking was Stravinsky's intention or studied intuition. Maybe it doesn't matter, because the composer is the composer and the analyst is the analyst. I bring it up here because this level of comprehensive insight would be absent from diagrams and whatnot, and would render them nonessential.
  11. ** I suggest we stick to seven albums and that would be enough. *** LMAO - The understatement is regal.
  12. There are some really good ideas in this piece, both rhythmic and harmonic. Of course even though they are miniatures, I would like to hear them more developed and connected. I suppose to make them less miniature. But in doing do so it would give you a chance to move away from the lower register in the piano, for variety. In the third movement you've got some dotted 8th- 16th note figures. But instead of the dot you have a rest. Perfectly acceptable. But this may be a clearer way of writing it.
  13. I tracked down what this reminds me of. It is a lamentation, but it's not written by a Jew. It was on the TV show Mad Men, and it was written specifically to sound Jewish. https://youtu.be/TsVCjykMHVw
  14. This melody sounds vaguely Jewish. Is it? Very somber.
  15. I'm glad you didn't post the score. It lets me focus on the music. It works very well hearing all the movements. Sometimes that makes a big difference, because the transitions are important too. Very idiomatic for the piano as I would expect, showcasing all registers, timbres and textures, both sustained and percussive. It shows a certain equanimity and evennees of emotion, or lack of it sometimes. I think the open fifths contributed to that. But there were welcome emotional parts as well that I liked. Some reminded me of Meredith Monk a little. It is a well balanced work with the proper pace for its length. Very enjoyable.
  16. Well, this is an interesting piece that definitely sounds like a Nocturne. I think it is clever and almost humorous the way you only suggest "proper" cadences. But it is skillfully and consistently done throughout that a listener could relax and enjoy the sure hand of the composer. Nicely done.
  17. Often we get inspired by composers that we like. And sometimes it's best used as a catalyst for helping us compose, as I think it is here. This sounds more romantic than either of those two stripped down composers, and that's totally fine because this works well on its own. The bald statement of the minor 9th in the opening bars is jarring, even though when it's played later on in the piece, it sounds fine because you've given it the proper context. You might want to rethink that.
  18. I suppose newer musical syntax requires a different approach to analysis. That is what I understand from what Monarcheon is saying. She's obliged to learn it if not to teach it, just to know it. You and I won't be saddled with such a chore. 😳 Personally, I don't find that analysis robs me of anything in the music. I love to analyze songs to learn the chords so that I can play it. As a practitioner I'm happy to let the spell morph into a skill. And I could listen for hours to Leonard Bernstein talk about music. But I'm dubious of music (and analysis) that cannot be explained in simple English. (As an aside, I just stumbled upon the term that perfectly describes what I was saying earlier here about opposites in philosophical debate. It's called "Coincidentia Opositorum" or coincidence of opposites, or unity of opposites. )
  19. No, I don't know Schenkerian, nor Forte. It might be fun to sit in in this class. But I wonder if it would broaden my ability to talk about music or enhance my appreciation of it.
  20. By reductive do you mean simplistic? Lacking pertinent information? Looking at the illustrations, no, they don't immediately invoke some aspect of music. But I'm guessing there are relationships, proximity, intersections and such. Why aren't basic analyses like ABA, ABBA, which could be used a conversation starters now considered inadequate? Is there an aspect of deconstruction in this approach, sort of like Derrida, who I think would say that you shouldn't read anything into a narrative. Everything must be contained on the page,
  21. Thanks for that explanation. Such analysis of alternates reminds me of two men discussing whether or not man is selfish by nature or generous by nature, and why each one is preferable to the other. And after revealing layer after layer and each side being forced to distill its own logic we come up with the idea that it is actually selfish to be generous and generous to be selfish, and that both of these coexist as necessarily so. And maybe the joke is that after all the machinations, it really doesn't matter. Aside from the analysis, I understand that the musical goal is to avoid the ego and substituting various systems in its place. And that the result will be, if nothing else, fresh and without precedent. And I am reminded (again) of the film maker David Lynch, an intuitive artist in process, who is often imitated, but never duplicated. Because his films are so puzzling, people are always asking him, "Why did you do this or that is your film?" And it could be anything. A frenetic scene, or something frightening and filled with anguish and mystery. And he just says, I thought it was beautiful.
  22. I think it works as a whole in terms of sounding like Haydn. Because when I think of Haydn I think, Bow and Curtsy dum dum dum. All the cadences tied up in a nice little bow. Congrats! You've done all that. However, the counterpoint could use some work. It's unclear because the scalar sequences don't have proper tonic-dominant grounding in their "journeys." Only vague hints. I felt that you might be trying to avoid the necessaries in order to sound modern, and were braking counterpoint rules to do so. Stravinsky it's not. In fact you may be working against yourself by not doing enough of the basics here, because the style is very circumscribed and you're kind of stuck with it for now.
  23. I always enjoy your pieces, Sojar. They always sound masterful and complete in that I wouldn't add anything or take anything away. When you say fresh I might think "something not done before" or " something good that really works." I put this in the latter. Is that why you say that this idiom is strict? It seems to me that anything not de-constructive is difficult to sound fresh.
  24. Yes, I think so too. If only once or twice, the deviation would give going back to the melody the comfort I think the composer is after. Because as you say, the melody is very nice. But it needs an opposition to prove it.
×
×
  • Create New...