PsychWardMike

First off: I like it. Second off: It sounds a bit too baroque. I get the idea of doing something in the vein of Handel or Bach, but they've been dead for centuries. Their counterpoint is their own and I think that while a neo baroque style is a great thing for a composer to go through (I've been there for a while now) it's important to realize that that we're not in the 1700s any more and that there are many many different harmonic textures one can apply to create a fresher piece. Your orchestration seems to be pretty well handled, but if you expect to perform this with anything less than a good college ensemble, all of the high a's and b's you have written for the soprano around measure 61 and onwards are going to give you a whole peck of trouble of them being able to hit it in tune and with the proper phrasing. This problem also carries through when you're thinking of the line they are singing: in this style (though admittedly I'm drawing from some principals of Renaissance counterpoint) it's better to have one "peak" note for the sake of the drama of the line. The high a is a gorgeous note when done well and can really sell the climax of the piece, but if you keep hovering around it and coming back to it, it really loses a lot of its power. Again, I liked the piece, but these are just my own two cents.

Alright, so lots of coffee, Diet Pepsi Max , chocolate covered espresso beans, and an entire pack of cigarettes later this is done. I finished the entire movement (editing and all) in about thirteen hours. The score and parts are now in the hands of the musicians and on the 18th they will read it. Woo! Also here is the completed score for my first string quartet: "Kinetics." I'm kicking around letting it be a standalone piece and also kicking around doing a more serene first movement (with the somewhat obvious title "Potential.") Any thoughts would be well received and muchly appreciated. (Also, could we get this moved into Chamber ensembles?) kinetics string quartet.mus kinetics string quartet.mid

My school is having string quartet readings soon. Scores are due today (Tuesday, Feb. 3) at 5. I started writing this last night. I haven't shown it to anyone yet and I haven't really edited, but I was hoping that I could get some feedback as to whether or not you guys think this is even worth my continued effort and me turning it in. Thanks! string quartet.mus

I like Leo Balada an awful lot. And an obligatory shout out to Nancy Galbraith (hooray my professors!) On a more national scale (though they both get a fair bit of play) I like John Adams, Michael Daugherty, Jennifer Higdon and Christopher Theofanidis. I think the common bond is a good knowledge of how to combine consonance and dissonance as well as their expert use of the orchestra. I'm really not a fan of Corigliano's music, though. No, it's not because he's "unchallenging" (bee tea dubs, pretentious much, Ex?) but because I think he has some interesting formal ideas but very little in the way of interesting content. Also, he's kind of a jackass.

It wouldn't. It's just a roll.

Because just as the 2nd Viennese school outgrew tonality, we outgrew atonality. Granted one shouldn't write in the style of Brahms or Mozart anymore (though if you can really write like Brahms, maybe you should) but everything's been done. Major, minor, modes, tone rows, penta- hexa- octo-tonic, whole tones, microtones. It's all been done. It's just a matter of arranging the notes pleasantly and appropriately. Major and minor tonalities can work to this end.

Upon further reflection, I completely agree with your comments about the ending. Initially I thought to keep it intentionally abrupt, even disappointing, but I don't think that that fits with what this piece is doing. I rarely make apologies for my music, but this was a one shot endeavor, completed over the course of about three hours in the very early morning and that idea sounded much better at the time. Insofar as your comment about a "full score" versus what I have, however, I'm a bit puzzled. The aim of this piece is minimalist, heavily borrowed from Riley's "In C" (so much so that the title of the piece, for those concerned is "In 3") The order in which the lines change, how long each section is dwelled upon, even, to a lesser extent, how to follow the dynamic markings (in a micro versus macro idea) is up to the conductor and performers, and I think that writing the whole thing out goes against those ideas. Perhaps this isn't the best way to do it, but I suppose my main issue in creating a score that looks like "In C" (pictured here) is that I'm looking to write a series of short waltzes for orchestra, and I want this, as well as my orchestrations, included versus "In C" which can be played by any ensemble of instruments. Anyway, I really appreciate the comments (though why would measure 29's roll need two timpani?) and look forward to more of your thoughts. Thanks!

I associate a very few keys with colors. E flat Major is my green key D Major is my red key D dorian is my white key (mode, I know) G minor is my black key and that's about it. There are some vague notions of color other places, but nothing palpable enough to write about.

If you're a bassoonist and a composer, you'd do well to take a look at Carnegie Mellon University (my alma mater.) Great teachers in both as well as lots of performance opportunities and a top notch symphony.

They're not bad, but they lack a lot of power and polish. As these lyrics stand right now they conjure Nickelback and Creed images, a sort of bland rock-noise. The lyrics seem a like a bunch of generic phrases put together without a driving rhythm and interesting language to back it up. Now I'm not saying that one needs to be Shakespeare for simple song lyrics, but if you're going for some of the deeper subjects that plague humanity (religion, inequality, the stress between "morals" and "hedonism) you have a rich well to draw from and you're only skimming the surface. Maybe some allusions or metaphors could color your language and a strong driving rhythm (perhaps propagated by alliteration?) could give your poem energy.

Hi all. I was recently assigned in my orchestration class to write two waltzes, one in the style of Johannes Strauss and the other in a modern style. They generally aren't very long, but I really got caught up in writing this piece, putting it together in only a few hours. A little backstory: I've been listening to a lot of Terry Riley, Steve Reich, John Adams, and Sujan Stevens, so minimalism is the game here and though the midi file (pardon the basic finale midi... I'm on school computers while mine is in the shop) plays each change 4 times, it should be noted that in a performance, each two bar section would ideally be played more and the changes in the instruments would not happen all together, but gradually. Of course if someone wanted to simply play everything twice with each change happening as it occurs in the music, that would be fine. This piece borrows heavily from "In C." Anyway, feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks! -Mike contemporary waltz.mus contemporary waltz.mid

Higdon came to my school recently. She's great, really personable and fun. She and the trio Time for Three did excerpts from her Concerto 4-3 and it was really astounding. If you have the means, I'd highly recommend giving it a listen. Fun story, I was immensely impressed by the piece and, having just recently turned 21, asked her if I could take her out for a drink. She said "Sorry, I'm busy, but when you apply to Curtiss, definitely." I'm honestly not sure if I'm good enough to get in, and she's never heard any of my stuff, but hey, she told me to apply. Woo!

There are definately some gems in this. I think you show a remarkable knowledge of rhythm (in the bars that aren't straight quarter notes) and in one of your measures, you seem to almost stumble across some minimalist development. I'd keep at it if I were you. Maybe flesh out some of the accompaniment to make it more interesting, but on the whole it was a fine first out!

No offense taken, but one should remember that composers - in fact, many artists and even great thinkers in science and other fields - throughout history have self medicated, be it by drink, potent smokables, or other chemiclas. Taken responsibly, mind altering chemicals can be extremely helpful. Of course there is risk - there's always risk - but that's something one would have to calculate for one's self.

While I do agree that competitions and deadlines are extremely helpful, I would also point out that you should probably train yourself to compose for a certain period of time per day, or to crank out a certain number of measures per day. Remember that not every piece you write will be your masterwork: even if you write a particularly lackluster piece, you'll still have had the experience of working through tough times and you'll come out the other side a better composer (and hopefully there will be some germs in the piece that you really do like which can be jacked for future pieces.) This will also reinforce good habbits; poets write every day because the simple experience of writing is like a workout, it keeps the brain nimble and strong. Composers should learn from this. As for your complaints of a sort of composition ADD, I'd reccomend trying new techniques. Write in a completely different style than you're used to, try a different form or ensemble. The sheer novelty of doing something out of the ordinary should help keep your interest. That failing, try aderol. It's a truly miraculous drug that lets you see in, out, and around your piece and really keeps you from getting distracted. Aderol has saved me more than a few times the day before a lesson.

Woo CMU! But for the record, not all musicians at CMU can double major outside their field. Not only does it take a lot of work, but it is possible to only be accepted into CFA (the College of Fine Arts.) Of course after some time spent in the University you can take other classes, but you aren't always allowed to double major. (I currently attend CMU as a music composition student with a minor in muisic technology.)

All the advice thus far is great, and I'll just add that listening to music with scores is a tremendous help because if you like a passage out of Mahler, you can read the score and help get general ideas of what he was doing to achieve different effects. But of course, you must also practice with your ear and have music performed. Those help.

I don't see an oxymoron there. And to Sir Violinist: I love movements 1&2, but I think my favorite is movement 4. It's just so powerful and awesome. It's one of the pieces that got me into music!

I was given a copy of Finale 2002 when I was a sophomore in high school. At that point in my life I knew I wanted to do music in college, but I felt that I wasn't talented enough (or at least didn't have the drive) to go into performance. But when I first booted up the program, I fell in love. The first piece I wrote was a terrible string quartet; I had almost no idea of harmony and the whole thing pretty much revolved around the chord "g minor" with no harmonic motion. Still, I worked on it for hours and knew at that point that I wanted to compose, so I enrolled in some theory classes in high school and now I'm in college living the dream.

Tenor10, there is no reason to say that you have poor taste in music. Dvorak is a master, and even if he wasn't, if you like him, that's no one's business but your own. Everyone has music that they like that a lot of people who "know about music" frown upon, but that's no reason not to like it. Unless it's Linkin Park. God I hate Linkin Park. :) But as for Dvorak, he's one of the masters, one of the best orchestrators of all time and easily the most influential European nationalist composer.

Yeah, that part would probably be it. Anyway, I'm at uni right now doing composition and I don't know how I would make it as a composer without my training. You see, university also gives you the added bonus of being completely immersed in music and musicians. You make friends and connections as well being forced to take classes in music history, ear training, counterpoint, and (if you're lucky) Eurhythmics which give you a lot of material to think about and work on. And from your teacher you learn about what's going on in the world of composition, how to work with publishers, how to develop a good work ethic and of course you have a seasoned veteran looking at your pieces and giving you help which is incredibly helpful. So do you need to go to school? No. Does it help? You bet. Hope this helped.

Overall? I liked it. I do have a few concerns, however: Movement I was my favorite movement. There weren't a lot of issues with it; you seem to blend some fairly video game-ish elements with the Baroque contrapuntal style. It sounds good and kept my interest for the piece. I would be hesitant, however, to have the trumpet section of the orchestra playing with the solo trumpet as often as it happens. Also, what is your desired ensemble? It might just be my crappy computer speakers, but I really didn't get much bass. If you haven't already, I'd consider putting in a bassoon part to flesh out the bottom of the orchestra. Of course, this only my opinion. My biggest issue is that you end on the dominant and don't really cadence to well in the second movement. I see what you're going for, but I don't think it's working very well. Movement II: The slow movement. As contrapuntally active as you were in the first movement, this is a little jarring. I understand that you want to do some other textures, but just because it's slow doesn't mean it has to be static. There are some great slow Bach pieces, but in the Baroque style there tends to be more motion than you're putting out there. It's not bad and the movement doesn't feel too out of place with the first, but I think you could do a little more. I like a lot of the textures and your harmonic and melodic ideas, but the second movement of a trumpet concerto can be a little tricky because one does not tend to associate the trumpet with lyrical lines and while your second movement is certainly lovely,the trumpet doesn't really get a chance to shine. I'm all about giving the orchestra some time to shine, but throughout the entire movement, the solo trumpet just seems... neglected. Movement III: There are more than a few genuinely nice moments in the piece, but it seems to drag a little bit. Was the form a gigue? I love gigues, but I think that this movement would be benefited by both being a little quicker (maybe a scherzo?) and being trimmed down a bit. --- I'd like to reiterate that I did enjoy this piece and these are just my comments to try to help. I look forward to seeing more of your stuff!

I'm gonna go ahead and agree with Sir Violinist and say that in the Romantic Era, Gustav Mahler was the greatest composer, followed closely by Wagner and then Brahms. While Mahler is not my favorite Romantic composer (that actually goes to Dvorak) his originality and pure artistic genius can't be overstated. He helped usher in the twentieth century and expanded tonality in a way that most had never even concieved. Wagner comes in second because he laid a lot of the framework needed to dissolve functional harmony and Brahms comes in third because I think he perfected the tonal symphony (that is not to say that Brahms was not harmonically intriguing and did not break some conventions, just that when comparing his music to Mahler or Wagner, his is much more conservative.) As for Dvorak, who is my favorite composer of all time, saying that the Ninth symphony is poor is incredibly ignorant. Each movement is a gem and his use of monothematicism is brilliant. Saying that the New World Symphony is his only known piece is also incredibly ignorant. His seventh and eighth symphonies are also wideply played (and in my opinion, better than the ninth) as is his Slavonic Dances. His cello concerto is standard repertoire (prompting Brahms to say "Had I known that one could write a cello concerto like this, I would have written one long ago!") In the chamber music world, his string quartets are widely performed.

SSC: 1. Stop taking things out of context. It's obvious that when I said that Bach, Wagner, and Chopin weren't "just making sounds" that I meant that, unlike your implication that they just wrote what sounded good without rhyme or reason, they knew what they were doing. Their music is methodical, built on decades of evolving music theory. They were innovators, but all their music was based on prior tradition. So yes, failing to acknowledge this fact shows a lack of familiarity with music history. 2. How can you say that the Tristan chord has nothing to do with the piece? It comletely represents the character Tristan. It's something akin to a leit motif or an idee fixee. 3. Art communicates both the emotion of the composer, but the thing that makes art so interesting and worth studying is the analysis of its message. That is why we study all forms of art. Music, painting, novels, that is why music is worth studying. So to answer your question, it conveys the emotions of both the artist and audience. 4. Art does not exist in a vacuum. If it did, your argument would hold some water. However, we are (or should be) experienced in the language of Western music which means that we as composers and listeners have to bring something to the table when listening. That is the only way to truly communicate with the music and composer.

I am not under the impression that music is a universal language. I seem to remember a case when a famous explorer (whose name eludes me right now...) brought a record player to a group of aborigines deep in the jungle. There he played Beethoven 5, arguably one of the greatest Western musical achievements. The aborigines, however, did not feel any connection to the piece at all. Their system of tonality and how music is created was so far different than that of German Romanticism that they found the piece funny, awkward, and random. Of course music is not a universal language, but you cannot say that it is not a language. All art is inherently communicative; that is the point. Art conveys emotion. Period. One of the truly magical aspects of art, however, is the ambiguity. While Picasso definitely had a reason for painting his masterpiece Guernica, I might get a completely different meaning than he intended. e.e. cummings's poetry is often incredibly ambiguous, but people still study it because if there is no intent to communicate with the audience, people will not care. Art - in all media - is a vessel for the artist to convey his or her emotion or statement to the world, but the beauty of it all is that truly great art will not just convey the intended meaning, but layers of meaning, each as different as the viewers themselves. --- As for our discussion on the subject of music theory, I'd like to address a few points: 1. No, the music of someone with no prior knowledge of music theory is not inherently inferior to that of someone with an abundance of knowledge. However, music theory definitely helps a composer put the thoughts in his head down on paper. Music theory gives you insight into things like form, harmonic function, and even simple notation and while common practice period theory isn't the only way one should write music, a base knowledge cannot hurt. 2.Berlioz very specifically wrote "Symphony Fantastique" as a tone poem. It does have an inherent literal meaning whether you'd like to admit it or not. In fact, there are a host of tone poems as well as symphonies which seek to create a mood or convey the idea of some object (Haydn's "Sunrise" symphony, Beethoven's "Pastoral" symphony, etc.) And while we're on the subject Wanger actually has had pieces in which certain chords do represent literal things. That's why the notes F, B, D#, and G# are commonly called “the Tristan chord.” Just as one cannot say that all music has a clear cut completely unambiguous meaning, you cannot say that some music does not. 3.Composers like Bach, Chopin, and Wagner who actually studied music were not simply “making sounds.” Each had a working knowledge of music theory and history (of course Bach did not have a working knowledge of common practice period theory because he himself had to help cement it, but he did have an extensive knowledge of contrapuntal techniques.) To say that they were just “making sounds” is shows a vast lack of knowledge of music history. 4. Composers like John Cage who use abstract media as music are still trying to convey a message or emotion with his work. No one ever said that music was limited to do re mi fa sol la si, but it's foolhardy to think that his works are without meaning or a form of communication. In short, I'm not angry. I just sincerely disagree with the ideas that a working knowledge of music theory can be anything but helpful to a prospective composer and that music does not share at least a few similarities with language.