Jump to content


Old Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Beginner

  1. I used archive 18-stave.....it's kind of difficult for piano music, but for an ensemble I've found it to be the best. It looks good, feels good, etc.
  2. I love the liebestod, and all of Tristan.......I studied the score a lot and learned a lot from it, the power of the harmonies is immense.
  3. lol, when I read this post I almost thought it was by me and I had forgotten about it!!! Daphnis and Chloe is THE BEST....in terms of sheer beauty and opulence, I can't think of anything else that comes close..........the richness and power of the harmonies, the orchestration that seems to mimic a forest coming to life before your very eyes (or ears?).....it is unmatched. I do love Mother Goose though, that is also some of Ravel's most powerful music (particularly what he added for the ballet)...honestly, Daphnis and Chloe would be what I would strive for as a composer, if I were a hard-core composer.
  4. Well, I didn't say I was writing like Beethoven - I personally have much greater interests than Beethoven's music. But I guess the difference is between those of us who want societal recognition (or recognition by a portion of society) and those of us who are content not to play that game. Also, I think that writing in or copying the styles of the past, to the best that you can replicate them, is the best way to develop skill, and is also an indicator of skill. It might be unfulfilling for listeners who want to hear something completely original, but it could also be of value to some who only wish ______ had written more, or are looking for the music to have certain qualities that they like, regardless of who it was and when it was written. IMO there's an infinite amount to be said in each style.
  5. Hmm....According to Nancy Bricard in her editions of Ravel's piano music, Ravel said that "If, when copying others, you remain yourself, it's only because you have something to say". Ultimately, someone with a truly creative impulse can only create what is within them to create, if that happens to be in a Beethovinian style, then that's just how it is. If you think that's not creative because of some intellectual ideology of how people should compose, I doubt anyone whose primary concern is their own imagination would care - someone who has inspiration knows they have it and can feel it in their heart and soul - it is not measurable or capable of being intellectualized.
  6. I should say that when I spoke of talent, I was using it as a synonym for ability, not about something that is necessarily inborn (though I'm sure the debate over this particular will rage on).
  7. Well, talent and success are two different things. Our society and the world at large, generally speaking, is very "yang"-oriented......by that I mean, it is dominated by and most easily navigated by a certain kind of personality. Other people who are lacking in the traits our society tends to value, and usually in whom the personality has turned inward to a considerable degree, will of course have a much harder time dealing with the world and possibly be too afraid to act in it, and by virtue of this tendency be less successful. I don't think this equates to the dominant type being more talented. Ease in moving about our world, a certain degree of which is a requisite for career success, and talent in various crafts, are two different things. Particularly in something where imagination and self-development are tantamount, like music, the profoundly inward-turned person possibly could have more "talent".
  8. Thank you for the warm wishes - though, I'll admit, it's kind of hard to achieve the last one when you keep responding to my posts.
  9. But why not? Being passionate about music in general, in the literal sense, would entail liking all music. If you look at some of the well-known composers of the past, and sometimes the present, very often they were scathingly critical of styles outside their own (even though, compared to the variety that exists today, they might not seem so disparate - e.g. Schumann vs. Liszt/ Wagner). Clearly they were not, or are not, passionate about music in general. I suppose we don't have to take "being passionate about music in general" so literally - but still, I believe that many of the great creative types are more passionate about their inner vision, about the contents of their own imagination that they find worthy enough of manifesting, than anything else that pertains to their craft. Since there is too much music out there for a single person to imbibe, one must pick and choose what to immerse one's self in, and if you have a specific creative vision, you are likely to choose (and be passionate) about that which has a similarity to, or can most effectively contribute to, that inner vision.
  10. Well, a fair point, but there's also the fact that the composers I mentioned were critical of their respective comparisons - clearly they chose not to write in those idioms because of something resembling an active dislike. And I also think that, even though one might be an inspired and skilled composer, does not mean one has reached some maximum level of technical ability which grants comprehension of every style......I have doubts, for example, that Tchaikovsky could have composed like Franck if he had wanted to. All this is to add to my point that I don't believe having an intellectual understanding of, and ability to use, as many different styles as possible, including those far outside what one is inspired by, is a necessity for a skilled composer. I think such a path entails a sacrifice of depth for breadth, and personally, I would rather go with depth. I would rather be really good at writing in two or so styles, than mediocre at writing in a lot of different ones.
  11. Well, it's largely because of intellectual curiosity that people are able to get degrees in the sciences and many of the humanities, whereas in something such as music, passion is often more of a motivation than anything intellectual. Just from the fact that most people have musical likes and dislikes, and that composers choose to write in certain ways and not others. Debussy would not have been happy writing like Grieg, Boulez would not be content to write as Stockhausen did (based on their comments). If they just liked writing music in general, they would be perfectly happy to compose in any style. Secondly, composers, more so than performers, are people who make choices. Choices are decided based on preferences, and preferences amount to finding one thing more worthy than another. I think the emphasis on preference and decisions inherent in the craft of composition, makes it difficult to coincide with liking music as a general phenomenon - which, in the literal sense, would entail liking all music by virtue of being music. But that's just my viewpoint, as my name implies I'm just a tadpole in the musical universe.
  12. But like I said, many composers aren't passionate about music in general, or about writing music in general.
  13. Well, intellectual curiosity in itself (which is what you are calling "learning") is not worth anything in my view, in spite of being valued by our society for reasons that I do not believe have been meditated on seriously. Maybe it has a purpose in a utilitarian field like engineering or chemistry, but with regards to something that has nothing to do with utility, like music composition - I don't think it's best to take the same approach. You can always learn about various idioms any time you choose, but passion can't really be ignored - it pretty much demands and commands one's attention in the present moment, thereby hindering efforts to learn about things outside of itself.
  14. I sometimes say the octatonic scale is my favorite, so I voted octatonic .....but they all have their place.
  15. Well, that isn't necessarily true - someone can instruct you just in the specific idiom(s) you want to learn if they have a truly thorough understanding of it.
  16. But why write music in an idiom you don't care for? (Unless you're being paid or whatever). That viewpoint doesn't recognize the existence of passion - and a composer's passion isn't always for music in general, or for writing music in general. Why learn about something you don't want to, when you could learn to compose in idioms that resonate with you, which would be a much more rich and rewarding experience?
  17. Well, criticism of a certain thing will actually tend increase the thing criticized. If the person improves, it will be in spite of the criticism, not because of it. (And I'm guilty of criticizing other people's music in front of them, though I'm trying to change that). I think the powerful, effective thing to do is to offer suggestions....don't just say "This sounds out of place/ weird/ uninspired". If you have a vision for how someone's piece should be, then offer the suggestion of the change you think is good. That is what I value when getting feedback, and what I find helpful.
  18. I wish my repertoire were wider....I guess my favorite to play is Ravel's Toccata from Le Tombeau de Couperin. Not that I play it very well, I play it a bit undertempo.
  19. I really like this response.....I think that manifesting one's own fantasy world is definitely part of why I (sometimes) compose, though the reasons are manifold and mysterious even to myself.
  20. I draw inspiration from things....once, I was reading a book called "primitive mythology" by Joseph Campbell. He told the story of a story-teller whose stories were unusually powerful to all those who listened/ watched, to the point where he saved the King (takes place in "Napata", wherever that is) from a ritual regicide....that's a simplification of it, but.... It proved essential to finding some of the themes for the first movement of a piano sonata, which I wrote last summer. (I'm not the best/ most prolific composer). As I imagined the story in my mind's eye, it was accompanied by music, in a sort of cinematic way, as if it were an opera or ballet. Though that is how I view life, as a fundamentally cinematic experience. What otherwise inspires me to compose are my passion for unspeakable beauty and drama, especially the opulence of the natural world. I also like Naruto and Star wars....don't laugh. Since I'm not a very good drawer and don't like writing prose or poetry, music is the foremost avenue I have to channel what inspiration I have.
  21. Well, I was just saying that, it doesn't facilitate what I prefer for my musical experience to be, which is where I create an imaginative world in my mind's eye that is accompanied by the music. And I think for my experience the vague jazziness of it detracts. That's not to say I don't think Ravel is THE GREATEST piano composer....for me no one else even comes close.
  22. I don't care much for cities at all....would much rather be where the non-human elements of nature dominate.
  23. Well, I think when it happens in some cases, like on motive in the finale of the piano trio, it just doesn't belong with everything else that is there. I was in a lush, verdant world with flamboyant birds and strange plants, but then there's some Gershwin-esque theme and it throws me out of the world I was exploring. And the jazz world, being sort of urbane, is not one I prefer to explore.
  24. I usually use a piano, even if it's a big orchestra score. Though if it is really big I might write in what the sonorities are so I don't have to line things up over and over again. Anyway, I think this helps me absorb the style. Also, having listened to it a bazillion times is important for me....I mean, might as well. I might go over it without a piano beforehand though. I guess I put disproportionate attention on harmony. Usually I try to steal the harmonies in my own music, but also sometimes the large-scale formal structure I steal as well. I think this is really important. Though transcribing is also just as important, IMO.
  25. Well, hmmm......I would say Howard Hanson's first three symphonies definitely make it into my top 5.
  • Create New...