Tom Lovering

I've only listened to the MIDI (and that, yesterday), and am not sure which parts are being referred to, but would it not be more interesting and productive for you to investigate a solution to this practical problem (e.g. bass flute), thus expanding your orchestration armoury and making your piece playable in the process? That said, I'm currently guilty of unplayable harp parts (although I am about to adapt it for classical guitar, where I can attain the desired arpeggio speed, and actually a closer timbre to my ideal).

I'm liking it so far, although my MIDI card insists on playing everything really badly apart from the timpani and horns, which sound absolutely awesome. I'm finding the timpani a bit loud though overall (might want to tweak the MIDI settings). I love the horns and piano section. I might have to steal that instrument combination. (Having listened to the whole thing) A general comment, some stuff (notable example directly after the horn/piano bit) comes out of the blue a bit. If you have woven that bits of that theme - maybe the low strings rhythm - in earlier (maybe you did, but I didn't notice), it might make more sense. It also jumps around random styles a bit too much for my taste. Maybe if you did it as more of a rondo type thing rather than largely through-composing lots of different bits without as much continuity, it would be more effective. That said, I feel the overall balance of tempo, texture and dynamics is very good. I also disagree with ending on the major, especially if this is the first movement of a larger work. Then again, I can hear you are a better composer than me. :D What is the random squelchy thing by the way? Is it a real instrument or some crazy sped-up looped frog sound or something? Also, I would change the title before a concert. "Lost Temple" sounds quite overtly cheesy. Maybe just put it in Italian or something :D

At the moment I'm stuck between composing intuitively (and rather simply) and composing systematically, with more careful planning and analysis, with the result that many of my compositions seem to be lacking in cohesion and continuity as I am becoming more critical of myself. I'll post a 4 minute beginning to a current orchestral attempt, which on the one hand contains a lot of quite good stuff imo, but on the other hand doesn't really gel together at all. If anybody could, by listening, or generally, identify some specific points or perhaps give me some useful device to help me nurture my muse to maturity that would be helpful. Thanks. (Incidentally, I know the harp part is ridiculously unplayable - with this composition I was more interested in getting down exactly what I want ideally rather than worrying about technical concerns, important though they are). StringsIntro.mid StringsIntro.sib

I don't suppose anyone has any MIDI files of Georgian (not Georgia in America, I mean the ex-Soviet nation) folk music of indeterminate origin? I would quite like to integrate some folk melodies from that part of the world into a new composition. Thanks. Edit: Sorry, this is in the wrong forum. If somebody could knock it up into the one above that would be lovely. Moderation: done.

Incidentally, are you from Montpelier, Bristol or is the name of other relevance? I live in Fishponds, so I'm curious.

True... but if you're a professional composer why are you taking advice from me? That said, I have deadlines to meet, but it makes sense for me to enjoy producing about 5 semi compositions I've enjoyed doing and developing one than labouring over a composition to try to make it original or fulfil some expectation, with the result that my heart isn't in the music so it's crap anyway.

Interesting to hear you say that Nico - I recently read a very similar comment made by Pat Metheny (the absolutely stonking jazz guitarist - www.patmethenygroup.com ), who became an honourary professor of music at 18 years old. It's obviously worth it (after all, if you can make a living out of composing, who needs school?).

A very useful tip I picked up from a wonderful composer last weekend was to enjoy the compositional process above all else. It is easy to get distracted and start thinking about corollary concerns like perfomances and other people's responses to your music, but the most important thing is you. Since realising and accepting that composition is a purely selfish activity in itself (although other people can enjoy the fruits of it) I have found my mind a lot freer to do whatever it does. If nothing else, it's made me say to myself "Why should I care if people complain my music sounds like Tchaikovsky! I wrote it purely for my own pleasure." It's a philosophy I'm adopting now anyway - you might find it useful.

There are so many moments during this where I could easily be listening to Tchaikovsky. Wonderful. I think the MIDI does it little justice though. I would love to hear this performed.

The Piston book is definitely worth it if you are serious about orchestration, giving (for the majority of the book) details on individual sections and instruments and then (my favourite bit) some analysis of how the orchestra as a whole can be (and has been, by composers) manipulated in terms of texture and counterpoint. Very useful.

Although classical music (including baroque, romantic, 20th century) is less popular as a percentage, I would not be surprised if more or a comparable number of people prefer classical music now as in the past. Of people in the past, only the upper and upper-middle classes would habitually have gone to classical concerts, most working class people used mainly to folk music, unable to afford to patronise classical music. Nowadays, I get the feeling that largely classical music is still largely appreciated by the more academic upper-middle and upper classes, as well as now some proportions of lower classes, while perhaps a majority of people who would have been classified 'working class' or lower-middle a century ago now listen predominantly to 'popular' music. Tbh, as a guitarist who has played in rock bands, jazz music, and classical, as well as a composer and (very much infant) conductor, I do not see popular music as completely distinct and alien from 'classical', and certainly reject the 'image' hypothesis as a generalisation of all popular music, although some, and indeed much undoubtedely is.

Hi, I'm just wondering why there isn't a solo instrument subforum, or whether 'piano' could be broadened to accomodate all solo instrument stuff. As a (primarily) classical guitarist, I compose a fair bit for solo guitar, and that has no obvious section on these fora.

I have, along with others in this thread, set out rational arguments as to why mathematics and music have a tangible connection. From Canzano's other posts on this forum I would imagine he knows a great deal about music, and to propagate a shouting war by insulting him is itself, I feel, immature and (more importantly) unnecessary and irrelevant. The issue is, can you put forward any rebuttal to the rational arguments put forward by myself and (better) by Derek? If so, let them be posted so this interesting thread can continue in a constructive manner. On the subject of proof, I had certainly been informed that studies into the apparent lack of structure in some of Debussy's work (specifically Prelude a l'Apres-midi d'un Faune) found that the reason his music was so beautiful despite a lack of conventional structure was on account of the presence of the golden ratio. I read this in programme notes, though, so I don't have much more information unfortunately.

I think of an oboe's sound in terms of an equilibrium between clarinet-like and flute-like, and I think the d'amour is generally more flute-like (when played well). That isn't probably very helpful if you don't think in the odd ways I do though....

Thanks - that sounds really useful I guess actually, because then you can take the music you've developed and try it out in loads of different metres and rhythms before settling on a final idea. Cool! :w00t: I'll try it for a week.

O..k... that is slightly scary. (not really - I know what you mean) I think it is for the same reason that few films are about everybody getting on just fine and being happy. Can you name a film where there is no conflict at all. When you say "write about peace" do you mean, just not military war, or generally no conflict. If the latter, I feel the task is very difficult. A successful example might be the first movement of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony taken alone (the first peace piece - excuse the pun - that comes to mind) although even that, as a whole symphony, has a storm in it where all the peasants start fighting just to make things more exciting.

Just finished listening to it. Overall I enjoyed it. I really loved some of the parts where you are building it up lots (I think a good example was around bar 81 - dissonance good here too!). I would have liked them milked a bit longer though (I think like the 1812...errr... well... maybe not that much...). Some of the dissonance was really effective imo (I got images of being on a motorway, where you have that horrible background hum that always seems to sound dissonant to the music you're listening to). However, in other places I felt the dissonance served no function and was dissonance for its own sake (e.g. bar 67). I'd also say that some of the string parts sounded a little contrived and inorganic (this is only a minor point, I'm trying to find something useful to say). Btw, when you wack five lines through a note (a tremolo), do you mean "play semihemidemisemiquavers of that note"? I had always thought that was what it meant - tell me if I'm wrong. If that is your intention, I certainly wouldn't like to play strings for you... :rolleyes: It'll be good to here some of those tunes in full context. Also, note that I am completely foreign to atonality and therefore my view should be taken as that of a general, a bit Romantically biased, orchestrophile. I hope my untrained views are useful anyway ;).

At the beginning I love some of the rhythmic interest going on and the subtle tempo changes. I would like to see the ideas developed more before they are properly joined together. Maybe make it a rondo or something. Not a big fan of the section around 3:30 to 4:15, although that could just be my MIDI sounding lame. The ending should be more definitive too. Overall, in my opinion, it seems a little patchy and fragmented at the moment. As I said above, I personally would extend the ideas much further, and not change moods quite so abruptly. Also, what is it that makes all of these fragments one whole piece? Whatever it is, it should be more obvious imo. Mind you, you did say it wasn't complete - so I guess all the above was to be sorted out then. Interesting ideas anyway... I like the concept too.

Wow - it's probably the nicest piece my MIDI module has ever performed. If it ever does get performed, I'd love to get my hands on a recording... Great stuff! Btw - I think it's Lydian Mode ;).

I have to reiterate Great Gate (as it's actually on iTunes at the moment :D). Actually the Promenade theme itself to a degree in more of a down to earth way. For me though, probably the final movement of Tchaikovsky's 5th does 'heroic' best. I wouldn't say all of Titan sounds heroic... (then again, I'm not a big Mahler person).

There is somebody in my GCSE music set who was protesting "I don't believe in this culture's obsession with writing everything down - notation is the enemy of music", to which I quickly replied, "I'm writing for orchestra, and rehearsals are tight enough without me teaching every musician his/her part individually!" (not to mention that by the time you've 'taught' everyone 30 mins of symphony, most will probably have been forgotten) Q.E.D.:D Does anyone have any good systems for writing down music (in rough) quickly? It takes me hours to write out 16 bars of music I might have improvised on guitar in 30 seconds, only to discard it the next day as out of keeping with the current project.

Don't be! Thanks for the opinion. Hmmm... it's hard to see how I might rectify something from being clichéd in general though...

Although pre-1700 (and probably later) there was a "Divine link" between particular chords or intervals that composers obeyed (perhaps and analogous similarly to the fact that we are limited to use of octaves the 12 notes of the chromatic scale, and none of the notes in between).

Hmmm... interesting topic. I would say that, for me, the fact that I use music software creates an affinity for romanticism, not a detraction from it. Having music software allows me to essentially spew a stream of music from my emotional consciousness (I am the sort of person that hears music in my head 24/7) onto an orchestral score and listen to it, adding whatever comes into my head first and evaluating on the spot. I feel that such a raw, unengineered type of music, without meticulously planned out harmonies, that captures the emotions that are already there in the mind and little more, is (certainly a breed of) Romanticism. Obviously I fix a few key structures beforehand (and usually a main melody to pin everything else onto) but the rest just comes, and the result sounds far more like Tchaikovsky or Brahms than Haydn. I consider myself a Romantic composer anyway... :) (I refuse to use the 'neo-' prefix though: the style is 'Romantic' - the fact that I am not of that time seems to me irrelevant).

I disagree. To completely deny the influence of mathematical order and logic within music is, in my mind, to deny music distinction from unordered noise, and downright naive. One needs only to look at the proportions of the scale and harmonic series (indeed the only discovery of Pythagoras for which we have historical evidence), to see quite clearly that mathematical proportions and ratios underpin music in a fundamental and undeniable way. It is also notable that many distinguished mathematicians also have an affinity for music, and vice-versa (certainly within my school this seems to be a trend). Surely you do not deny at least mathematical characteristics like symmetry within music (e.g.. form has a type of symmetry not unlike that of mathematical functions). The golden ratio (not 1.6 btw, but nearby), plays a fundamental role in more complicated types of symmetry. It seems to me surely logical that such a ratio might also have an influence on musical aesthetics. Well, bearing in mind that it is scientifically accepted that the golden ratio, playing a big part in the mechanics of the natural world, has a role in visual aesthetics, also over time as well as space, would it not be reasonable to assume (or at least consider it likely) that the aesthetics of music (sound distributed in time) might be similarly affected, given that all aesthetics are governed by the same class of entity (namely, the human mind). Well, I know mathematicians have a tendency to be very pedantic and stringent about the use of the word proof, but by composing a single composition based on the Fibonacci sequence that didn't work I fail to see how you prove there to be no connection. I could compose an awful piece of music not based on the Fibonnaci sequence, but it would be stupid of me to then say "ergo, all good music must use the fibonacci sequence". Sorry to have a go at you Mahlertitan, but your post was fairly aggressive and I felt it warranted retortion (or maybe it's because I'm not a big fan of Mahler's 1st...). I am both a mathematical Olympian and a keen composer, so I naturally value the very definite link between mathematics and music. All the above points made, it would of course be highly foolish for me to start composing my next symphony with a calculator on my desk to check the spacings between my climax points (not least because, if the above theory is true, I will create such proportions by instinct and the conductor will automatically adjust tempi, etc. to create the aesthetically correct ratio). To sum up, while it's nice theory to look into, I don't think it should affect the compositional process, which, by its nature, is governed by the unique inspiration, emotion and (I believe mainly) pathos of the composer, and not by a universal mathematical constant (hence why music is interesting, as opposed to aesthetically perfect - in fact the best music surely is not.