"so-called" composers

A few remarks about the YC site, coming from a french composer who entered recently. Please, excuse my insufficient English!

YC, open to anybody, has a large audience: the result is a profusion of so-called composers who obstruct the forums with uninteresting

This needs to be bumped.

But I don't think anything other than reputation can help this. Bad ideas need to be crushed, bad music should be posted so we can help, and people should learn to actually grow when someone says something. And people should remember who is who -- who writes good music (and there are a bunch) and who writes music to skip.

Dear Canchy,

You have to realise this site is for nurturing young composers. It is not for the furthering of already-established composers.

If you want to stay around and help young composers to grow, in a positive manner, I'm sure your experience would be invaluable.

If you're only interested in deriding a forum full of learning, inexperienced composers, then you should leave.

Best regards,

Daniel (Daniel)

obstruct the forums with uninteresting “musical compositions”: poor musical ideas and emotions, clumsy realisations and orchestrations, all this with pretentious titles!

Dear Canchy,

You have here used an opinion to support an argument, therefore your point is null and I will not take the time to read the rest of your post.

Please: no subjectivity here. :)

-Morivou. (The Panda-Jedi-Texan-Singer)

::yawn::

He's right, you know. Why do I not play in the upload forums much?

And I think having reviewer/mod awards or whatever... some kind of "hey, this piece is actually good..."

you know what, its just a can of worms and it'll just turn into people linking efriends and being accused of only linking efriends.

There is absolutely no way we can ever consider excluding anyone from sharing their works with us, no matter what skill level. With that said, we are going to have a rating system in place which will help visibility and categorization of "skilled compositions by popular vote". Of course, music is subjective, and you still may not agree with a majority vote. We have many different opinions and tastes, and I think this is what makes YC interesting.

I still think that there should be some kin of "staff picks..." but that assumes one big thing that has been proven to be wrong (i'm staff, so clearly): the staff knows anything about music.

I want to suggest another possibility. People could be divided in studying and amateur/self-thought musicians. The latter (to which I belong) ofter, is my observation, are more stuck in an musical era. There are people writing just baroque, and could be quite good at it, but hold no interest to others. Because they view that as a closed paradigm.

If there is to be a voting system the baroque music would get high votes from baroque lovers, but low votes from people who say that baroque is so old-fashioned.

Therefore it would be maybe beneficial to categorize the works in a era. Like all baroque together, all Mahlerians togethers (NB, the existence of this sect is a development that supports my view :D ), etc...

-Morivou. (The Panda-Jedi-Texan-Singer)

:laugh: That's good :laugh:

------------

I like jrcramer idea, but I don't know exactly how could it be done well.

------------

Mr. Duhamel: All what you have to do while being here is to remember that nobody owns the absolute truth in the arts, and if someone posts a critic or advise, that's his critic/advise and nothing more.

Even if we had here full of excellent composers writing reviews I wouldn't follow their advises just like that as a blind man, because excellent or bad, the rule applies to them too, nobody owns the absolute truth in the arts.

And personal opinions will always be present here, there's nothing we can do about it.

Just to show you ..... Thaikovsky is a "so-called" composer for me, if he would be here and post me "hey, that's wrong, fix it in this way" ... you think I'm going to follow him ? ... certainly not.

What I do agree and I think Chopin has already thought in this..... is that I would prefer a "private" YC were only registered members may see the threads .... at least the Upload section .. what do you think ?

Yeah let's just close off the site, that'll make sure good composers come.

You know, because I've seen in threads "Views: 390" "Posts:4"

I know not everybody post when seeing a thread but .... those 390 were indeed from members ? who are those ghost visitors ? that may be comming here to .... ? to what ?

Registering is free and easy, ... why don't they show up ?

to lurk, to see if they want to join, or to find information.

then they hear the music/read the threads/get their information/are disgusted by whatever and leave.

find information ? in Headquartets maybe but in Uploading Compositions ?

I don't know if this is too much ... but, would be good to have something to see what members have seen your thread ... like in Hi5 (I know you can set not to be seen in Hi5)

If that's too paranoid, only the "private" thing would be good.... I think....

Yeah .. I also have "nothing to say" sometimes .... but a private YC would give a better control on who may see the works we submit, To be honest, I have never liked vey much the idea of posting the score where the entire internet may see it and perhaps use it for other purposes ...

I'll wait to see what Chopin thinks about this ...

I don't know if this is too much ... but, would be good to have something to see what members have seen your thread

Currently we have a feature that will show you latest visitors to your personal profile (and the visitor can turn this option off, if he wishes to remain hidden). We also have a feature that will display fans, and who is a fan of which piece. This section is automatic. I figured that if someone physically clicks on "add to favorites" what is the big deal if it shows who favorited the piece?

I don't think it would be hard to record view history of music/videos. But is this overdoing it with the privacy issues? Is this something that is even helpful? This is a feature I could think about for future updates.

Yeah .. I also have "nothing to say" sometimes .... but a private YC would give a better control on who may see the works we submit, To be honest, I have never liked vey much the idea of posting the score where the entire internet may see it and perhaps use it for other purposes ...

Hmm, currently the network is designed such that everyone can view music. I do not have any options that allow for "private" viewing of music, so that only your friends can see what you post. Again, I could think about this on the next round of future updates. Right now, my concern is growing the network and making sure the first iteration of this network is stable. We are in the infancy stage, so the average composer would want as much exposure as they could get on this site I would think. This is why I did not think about this functionality.

Dear friends,

I apologize for the manner of my intervention: it was provocative, to cause r

Dear mr Duhamel,

To make a long posting short (by lack of time): although boldly, you are right in proclaiming that this and so many other sites similar to this add little in helping composers to compose. Postings like "he I do not know anything about music but I like it", has not other meaning apart from flattering the 'composer'. Making a remark, somebody once said to me that "people" like his music, so it was good; the people involved, so it appread were his parents...

Most of the "compositions" posted here, with titles that reach the sky and conceptions beyond imagination, are a waste of time to look at. One can indeed learn how to orchestrate, one can indeed learn how to use harmonies or how to write a fugue, but one cannot learn how to compose an inspired piece of music. You can learn all about form, yet form is no music.

Sites like these are a product of the "feel good generation", a time when it is forbidden to tell somebody the is not apt for the job, instead one has to praise his achievements even if they suck.

In short, although a site like this is positive in conception, it passes by its initial goals.

Sincerely yours,

FDC

Ah. I'll just say this:

Most of the "quality" problems would be solved if what is enforced is not the type of music being allowed or any of that but that the presentation of the pieces is properly done. That is to say, even the most professional of professionals won't have their music allowed on the site if they fail to provide a comprehensive intro/explanation of why they, as composers, wrote it.

When you present pieces as a composer, either in seminars, or exams, or anything like that, you are going to spend time talking about the things that may interest other composers such as your reasons for writing it, the things you used, and so on.

I propose that THIS should be moderated very harshly for quality control. No matter who it is, just posting a midi or a score and not saying anything SHOULD NOT be allowed, just like if you do this in any respectable place you'd get booted. The same should happen here. Again, it doesn't matter WHAT you're presenting exactly, but you need, as the presenter, to explain why you're showing it, how you wrote it, etc etc. There are pieces in the major works sections that fail this spectacularly and it's a shame too since they're interesting pieces sometimes.

It's a well known fact that having a proper colloquium-like attitude is essential to discussing compositions, and I've been to many composers' colloquiums which are precisely what I mentioned above. A person presents a piece in as much detail as they think is necessary to highlight their intentions/bla bla, and then everyone comments and so on.

The point is, this is a NECESSARY skill to have as a composer. Much more than composing, in fact, as it shows you're not just coming here to show off your pretty little fugue, but that you want actual feedback, discussion, etc. I repeat, like I have before, in the interest of this I wrote a guide in the wiki.

So long as this VERY important point keeps being ignored, the site will continue to attract people who just come here to show off or "hay look" and none of them really care for having proper feedback. If they don't KNOW how to do what I said above, then please do feel free to expand on the guide I wrote and TEACH people how to go about expressing their ideas to others.

That's all.

Ah. I'll just say this:

Most of the "quality" problems would be solved if what is enforced is not the type of music being allowed or any of that but that the presentation of the pieces is properly done. That is to say, even the most professional of professionals won't have their music allowed on the site if they fail to provide a comprehensive intro/explanation of why they, as composers, wrote it.

When you present pieces as a composer, either in seminars, or exams, or anything like that, you are going to spend time talking about the things that may interest other composers such as your reasons for writing it, the things you used, and so on.

I propose that THIS should be moderated very harshly for quality control. No matter who it is, just posting a midi or a score and not saying anything SHOULD NOT be allowed, just like if you do this in any respectable place you'd get booted. The same should happen here. Again, it doesn't matter WHAT you're presenting exactly, but you need, as the presenter, to explain why you're showing it, how you wrote it, etc etc. There are pieces in the major works sections that fail this spectacularly and it's a shame too since they're interesting pieces sometimes.

It's a well known fact that having a proper colloquium-like attitude is essential to discussing compositions, and I've been to many composers' colloquiums which are precisely what I mentioned above. A person presents a piece in as much detail as they think is necessary to highlight their intentions/bla bla, and then everyone comments and so on.

The point is, this is a NECESSARY skill to have as a composer. Much more than composing, in fact, as it shows you're not just coming here to show off your pretty little fugue, but that you want actual feedback, discussion, etc. I repeat, like I have before, in the interest of this I wrote a guide in the wiki.

So long as this VERY important point keeps being ignored, the site will continue to attract people who just come here to show off or "hay look" and none of them really care for having proper feedback. If they don't KNOW how to do what I said above, then please do feel free to expand on the guide I wrote and TEACH people how to go about expressing their ideas to others.

That's all.

very nice idea.

i think that if we do something like this though, we should have a "new composers" section. beginning composers (especially really young ones) won't be able to write a detailed analysis of their work.

I agree with everything SSC said and I too find this more helpful than imposing any sort of "quality standards". Having staff members review pieces before admitting them by strict criteria automatically means that certain kinds (or "styles") of music will be excluded, since there's no strict separation between a "style" and "quality", especially since there are no borders to what can be called a "style". It's just different music, with different standards and different methods and as soon as you make things more exclusive with the perceived goal of "quality control" you always also make things more exclusive in regards of different musical goals/orientations. So unless you don't want a forum dedicated to a certain kind of music that shares some common aims and standards, there's no way of creating any effective sort of judgement system.

And besides, I definitely wouldn't -want- that either. I don't think this has to be a forum for "good music". A community that merely serves showing each other "Awesome Music by Awesome Composers" may be enjoyable in some respects, but it's definitely not what interests me in YC. We can hear plenty of great music without needing YC for that and any "professional" composer can show her or his own music to others without YC too. The more professionally experienced a composers is, the more possibilities she or he will usually have to showcase their music without the need for such a website.

The great quality of Young Composers (IMHO) lies much more in the educative aspect. To give YOUNG, relatively unexperienced composers the chance to present their music to others and get constructive feedback. THOSE are the ones who need this most, since THOSE are the people whose music is rarely performed, who may not have had composition teachers yet, who don't have established networks and rarely get professional feedback on their works. Asking for a high level of musical "sophistication" when presenting pieces here just defeats this purpose entirely - and would make me much less interested in this community.

A verbal presentation as SSC suggests however is something that in my opinion any composer, no matter the experience, can give. In reply to beautifulnoise: No, I don't think it has to be a detailed analysis of their work. A lot of the program texts written by composers about their works are not analytical in the least - but they still serve to give the audience a little help in approaching an entirely unknown piece. It MAY be rather technical information (about your structural concepts or whatever), but it may just as well be an attempt to verbally convey some feelings and inspirations that led to the piece. It can contain a little explanation of what made you write for exactly this instrumentation. Or maybe whether you were inspired by a specific composer in a certain way. You may explain why you chose that specific title. You may write about the doubts you are having about the piece yourself or what parts you are proud of. You may state the questions that arose to you when writing the piece and ask the audience to listen out for certain things. And so on. There are MANY ways of presenting a piece of music to other people and many of them are perfectly legitimate. And that doesn't require much experience - it just requires sitting down for a couple of minutes and thinking about what you'd like to tell your audience before they listen to your piece. Anyone can do that. It may not turn out perfectly, but the important part is that you take this aspect seriously and -do- it instead of just throwing music around wildly.

I'd be entirely in favour of making a brief but thought-through verbal presentation of a piece a requirement.

I like your idea. Since we are still in developmental phase, I still have time to get some minor things accomplished. Do you have suggestions on what types of information a user uploading music should present? Right now, the only mandatory field I have is "description". However, if you can give me suggestions on how the format should be presented, do it before the next week or so, and I will evaluate your suggestions.

Edit: Awhile back, when we opened the forum in 2005, I had suggested these guidelines upon posting music:

1. Techniques used/Inspiration/Goal of composition
   
2. How long it took to compose the piece
   
3. Structure of your piece
   
4. Obstacles when composing
   
5. Summary of overall piece

The problem before, was that I had no way to enforce people to write about the above topics. Now that I have the ability/resources to customize things, I now can enforce certain fields. What fields would you like to see?

I think a couple of characteristics can be outlined in any presentation:

1) Why write it?

Motivations, inspirations, bla bla, go here.

2) How is it written?

Techniques, structure, rhythm, bla bla, go here.

3) Are you happy with the result?

Self criticism is important!

---

I think that's general enough that anyone can answer to some degree. Then it's just a matter of filtering. Honestly it shouldn't be too specific since music comes in all shapes and sizes, so keeping it on meta-level is probably for the best. Plus it's what is generally expected when you present stuff IRL anyway.

I'm not sure if it really has to be split up in such specific questions. Personally, I might find it boring to read the presentation of every piece in exactly the same form - it would be more interesting for me to see what the composer her or himself finds important to tell about the piece.

So personally I'd just leave it at a single (mandatory) description/commentary box to be filled in whatever way you like and write questions as the ones stated above (by chopin and SSC) as suggestions to write about if you don't know where to start. (Or, if that's too open for your taste, write: "Please include information about some of these aspects in your description." and make that a requirement.)

I doubt a quality presentation is really enforcable on a code-level anyways. You can write random trash in any form if you want. The only way to enforce some quality there is by an aware staff.

P.S. A little humorous annotation: Even established and famous composers sometimes get a bit lazy when having to present their own music. Wolfgang Rihm (who's generally rather verbose) once wrote the following program note for a cello piece: "I wrote a cello piece. I find it beautiful."

I doubt a quality presentation is really enforcable on a code-level anyways. You can write random trash in any form if you want. The only way to enforce some quality there is by an aware staff.

I agree that it should be a single text box and that you give the posters guidelines for how to go about it, but not enforce strictly that they do it in that order. So long as what they're saying touches on those points, it should be fine.

And yeah, the only way to enforce it would be to moderate manually.

Having staff members review pieces before admitting them by strict criteria automatically means that certain kinds (or "styles") of music will be excluded, since there's no strict separation between a "style" and "quality", especially since there are no borders to what can be called a "style". It's just different music, with different standards and different methods

I super agree, yeah don't get into that mess.

--------------------

A member called "Gold" in electronic, well it was always very difficult for him to say a word about his music, ... (very abstract stuff) because he used to handle no special meaning, he couldn't remember when did he do it, how much time did he spent etc etc ....so specific question may not work sometimes, but we can make the composer to remember things by adding a few questions, yes, that is true, so I support the idea just we have to find very centered questions.

Usually all this informations comes up within the discussion on the thread, in that case we all must ask for that information if we don't see it..

Are you happy with the result?

That question must be there, count that one. :thumbsup:

Why write it?

Someone could answer "Because I wanted to" and that would be the end of the story, (but I'll think in some other similar)

Could we add several questions, answer only the ones we choose, and the other won't appear because we left them in blank ? like they would never were asked ?