Ananth Balijepalli

Always a great feeling to hear your pieces played by live musicians! 1st movement: I can definitely see a piece like this becoming a staple for high school symphonic bands. Obviously excellent control of harmony and excellent orchestration. I especially like the use of tuba against the woodwinds yet maintaining good balance. There is definitely potential for development and I feel the harmony could have been stretched a little bit more for dramatic effect, but as it is, the movement ends just before it gets stale. 2nd movement: Much more interesting harmony to start and a good use of percussion in the traditional band setting. Upon repeat of the initial motive, I wished there was a little more melodic motion - because there is constant motion underneath the treble voices it feels like a buildup might be in store but the singing voices keep stopping before their ideas can be fully fleshed out. It seems counterintuitive, but because the voices keep starting and stopping that disconnected me from the music and makes the music feel much more blocky. More in a little bit.

Hi everyone, I started this piece in September of 2014 and then ran into some crazy writer's block which, coupled with life changes causing me to not have much time to write, made me feel that I would be failing if I wasn't able to finish this piece. It's in a similar style to my sextet (finished in 2013) and my piano sonata (finished in 2012) but I wanted to make an effort to write less blocky music. Although there are still sections of 4 bar phrases and motivic sequencing, I wanted to make that the exception and try to derive harmony from interacting vocal lines whenever possible. I guess if it is so flowing and mellow that it makes you fall asleep, then that means I successfully wrote some meandering lines. Hope you like it. (I realize the score isn't completely neat and tidy) (Thanks to Danishali903 for a rendering with GPO).

Stuff is stuff, sure, and depending on the social/cultural context, you can probably derive the same amount of expression from both but from a post-modern perspective (i.e. one in which modernism has already taken place and has been rejected), romanticism and modernism aren't just aesthetics but are ideals that are embodied through the music. In the case of romantic music, there is usually a story being told through the music that utilizes the asymmetry of the major and minor modes to develop tension and release. Modernism, on the other hand, has ubiquitous tonal dissonance and ambiguity and so develops tension and release slightly differently - either through contrasting styles or by thematic/melodic development and combination. You can use either effectively to be expressive... But in my opinion, those few composers that use both traditional romantic storytelling in combination with tonal ambiguity and contrasting styles with an underlying human ideal they are trying to express are the ones that are most successful in moving me. Now that I think about it, there are definitely some romantic music characteristics like superficial codas and introductions that really detract from the emotional power of the music - and on the flipside, almost too excessive contemplation or dissonance for the sake of dissonance in modern music.

You should have just gotten a tattoo of the handwritten thing - you have pretty good music writing. Are you sure you want that many sharps? If you notated in Db it might look cleaner. There's a double bar at the end - don't know if you mind that. Anyway here.

I like your spirited defense, especially the emphasis with the different font - really clever and not as cliched as the usual bold or italicized emphasis. A sonata is a story with 2 or more conflicting characters. Certain modulations fit certain characters - depends on your material. Take Brahms symphony no.4 - 3 clear themes of all differing character that are in different keys. The keys help to separate the characters from each other. In this story, the characters are all introduced and then something happens to them - they go on a journey (modulation) or they meet each other (motivic combination), or they encounter life changing experiences (elongation or truncation, maybe even inversion or retrograde), but the key is that there is a climax! There is always a climax in a story and the point of a sonata is the climax... After that, the characters might be changed permanently or they might go back to who they were or they may be in a different key... who knows. It's up to you.

Hey Daniel, Basically (and this is a humongous simplification), a melody is a string of notes that implies the harmony underneath... The melody is the thing that is defining the scale/chords whatever you want to think of. So to "move a melody to a different scale" you simply have to write an extension to the melody that can use chords from both the starting scale and the ending scale and then slowly transition to chords from only the ending scale. This is called a modulation. Often people use the term "pivot chord" as the chords that are part of both the starting and ending scale.

Also, what Buck said earlier there.

Dude, I did answer your question - it's not notated very often... The performer may either choose to use damper pedal for the sustain effect, or the sostenuto.

I think I know what you're asking, and in modern piano writing, such things are usually not written in. If you would like the performer to specifically use damper pedal in a certain location, then you can notate it specifically - or you may notate "senza pedale" to specifically tell them not to. Otherwise, it would be left to performer's interpretation. For sostenuto pedal, though - I have very very very rarely seen this notated in the piano music that I play. It's almost assumed, given the context of a musical fragment, as to whether a sostenuto pedaling is required. I hope this helps!

To the OP: What you are asking is quite confusing... do you want a MODERN fugue? Or do you want a CONTEMPORARY fugue. I can give you 200 examples of modern fugues. But not so much on the contemporary side. Remember that modernism refers to certain types of music composed during the modern era, which has passed a long time ago. We're probably past the whole post-modern shtick now also... Just use the word contemporary next time.

I'mnot sure if you're new to the Internet or forums in general, but that's not how it works, I'm sorry. The "report" button does indeed exist, but it's meant for egregious violations such as the posting of sexually explicit content, hate speech, or graphic violence. It doesn't have anything to do with people mocking you. If by mocking you mean criticizing you and your works, and you are unable to take criticism even in a mocking sense, then I would suggest that you do not pursue composition because a.) you will never improve and b.) you will be offended by every single one of your teachers. It's possible maybe that in your culture you are brought up in such a way that you're told that you are special and that you're a musical genius, but you shouldn't expect to be coddled like that in the real world. If you're being mocked, it's for a reason. If you fix that in your music, boom, you won't be mocked anymore. Good luck!

I'm not trying to be a dick, but if you type into google "learn music theory" I am absolutely sure you will get tons of search results that will answer all of your questions.

Perhaps you are not a native english speaker, as it appears you have misread what I have written. When a person hears a major chord, whether it be C or D or Eb, they associate it with "happy" music. That's the socially conditioned response. It has nothing to do with someone actually KNOWING what they are listening to. Rather, the innate auditory perception of such a chord is socially associated with that kind of thinking.

If you're going to study independently, you will never go anywhere as a real composer unless you pay careful attention to the fundamentals of composition. There's a reason why composition programs have you start off with basic harmony and counterpoint and you don't even write Mozart esque music until your sophomore year: if you do not understand harmony or counterpoint, you will fail. Your music will continually demonstrate lack of understanding. However, it might comfort you to know that the vast majority of people won't be able to hear how woefully inadequate your music is. They will hear a C major chord and think, "This piece of music is happy, and reminds me of sun and butterflies.". These are the types of thing to avoid when trying to write art, as art requires perfect control and balance. Private lessons will allow you to learn the fundamentals at your own pace. They will allow you to master these fundamentals completely, as long as your teacher is a good teacher. For this reason, I would highly recommend them. If your professor is especially good, you will gain an insight into music that you would not have previously gotten if studying independently.

Congrats to everyone :happy:

A 24 hour extension would greatly aid me, as well.

I agree - The first 3 bars are ok, but the 4th bar, the G is interesting... It's still passable though. The "consequent" if you can call it that, is.. I dunno.. different. Rhythmically it feels very disconnected. But it's still usable material for writing a piece.

Hey! I'll join the competition too, if that's ok. I have the need to write something in a romantic style again!

Hey Marzique - I appreciate the time you took to write this post! Unfortunately, you have admitted that nobody will understand it. Therefore, I do not see the point of it existing here. I also would urge for you to schedule an appointment with a doctor because you seem to be a little delusional about your understanding of music.

I'm sorry dude, you seem like a cool guy, but unfortunately what you have said is not true. There's no such thing as talent OR success in the process of composition. As for the rest of you all... Massive Facepalm. The ignorance in this thread reeks like a decaying fish. Formal training IS necessary in the composition of art music. Not my opinion, it is a fact. All of you who are saying that Holst and Martinu and them all learned without formal training are wrong. Most of those composers that TJS listed indeed learnt composition formally, perhaps not when they were 6, but before they wrote any of their "mature" works. Now you are asking... "Why is it a fact?". Simple - By reading books you will learn all the individual components that make up a piece of music. By listening to music, you will have some idea of the conventional arrangement of these components. However, this approach is inherently flawed because you aren't writing ANY original work at this point - you're just copying what you have heard. With formal lessons, however, you will learn exactly how to arrange these characteristics into a work of art with a certain convention, and you will also learn how to arrange them in your OWN meaningful way. Thus, becoming a composer of original work. Stop. Just stop. Stop trying to cop out of learning by assuming you can create original and highly structured music without help. You can't. It doesn't matter who you know, or who you don't know. If your music is not an original and highly structured piece of music, nobody is going to play it. It's not even about WHAT you know... it's about learning the process of original composition - something that a book cannot teach you.

Yes this is correct! Good job. Now you have Chris to answer to. Good luck. I will add one more thing: The most stable intervals are the unison, the 3rd, the 5th, and the octave. All of the other intervals tend towards reaching these stable states. The 7th, #4, and b3 are the intervals that give the chords which contain them their main leading ability.

Haha good catch ;) I mean that debates about music are usually pointless! They all come down to subjective points at some point and there's no use in trying to argue about what is "better" or "sound nicer". A real academic debate would talk about things that only can be measured objectively.

That's great that Rimsky-Korsakov says that. However, countless composers don't follow this "rule". Therefore, it's not a fact, and it's not a convention. So what is it? The opinion of one man. I read that orchestration primer way back when it came about 5 years ago. It is good to know, but I would much rather learn orchestration from what I hear to sound good from the music that I like. Also, yes, I can go around calling people dumbasses in the "professional world". Is that what you call this? How much actual exposure to the "professional world" do you have lol? In the "professional world" nobody says stupid things like you do. Everything that is put forth in a "debate" as you call this, is all factual and can be objectively corroborated. Also, I have listened to your music and I simply am stunned that you have the gall to go around acting like you're the second coming of Schubert or something.

Who says it's an objective fact? Winds are not necessarily better in closed harmony all the time. In fact, there are quite a few beautiful passages in the works of more modern composers that involve placing the winds and strings together in open harmonies. The internet is not the be-all end-all resource, it is true, so whatever you learn/read on the internet must be taken with a grain of salt, whether it be nuclear chemistry or orchestration. And please realize, you didn't offend me haha! I'm just trying to get you to stop making silly statements that show your ignorance. It is not an academic debate as to whether you should apply to schools that require performance auditions or not... I think you completely misunderstand the point of college. It is to learn things, and learning is one of the most valuable things you can do. If you're too lazy to learn how to play the piano, or to learn other languages (which actually really helps with understanding music!) then how can you expect to get ANYTHING out of a music education at college? After all, every class in every discipline regardless of your interest gives busy work as homework. Most of my composition homework, for example, is busy work... That's how the world works! But it helps you, trust me, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Laziness is something that you must shed if you want to be successful. The process of earning a degree is not about the paper at the end... that is meaningless! Rather, it is about the collective wealth of knowledge you get from a higher institution and studying with your peers. Part of that involves doing things that you don't like or don't want to do... But that is how we grow as people and especially as composers. As for orchestration... What Justin said ( pretty much explains his orchestral music... :P But if you look at scores of Mahler, or Vaughan Williams, or Hindemith. Masters of orchestration. The writing is far too diversified and complex to simply write for all instruments simultaneously. What that does is stymie your creativity. Especially in this day and age, you're more prone to writing simple rhythms and harmonies and copying and pasting that to other instruments, rather than writing to preserve layers of sound and ranges of voices. The way that every "good" (whatever that means) writer has done it is through piano reductions, and guess what, it's worked. So don't think you're some prodigy that doesn't require it. If I haven't heard of you by now - you're probably not a child prodigy.