Leaderboard

com·mer·cial   /kəˈmɜrʃəl/ Show Spelled[kuh-mur-shuhl] Show IPA –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of commerce. 2. engaged in commerce. 3. prepared, done, or acting with sole or chief emphasis on salability, profit, or success: a commercial product; His attitude toward the theater is very commercial. 4. able to yield or make a profit: We decided that the small oil well was not commercial. 5. suitable or fit for a wide, popular market: Communications satellites are gradually finding a commercial use. com·merce   /ˈkɒmərs/ Show Spelled[kom-ers] Show IPA –noun 1. an interchange of goods or commodities, esp. on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business. 2. social relations, esp. the exchange of views, attitudes, etc. 3. sexual intercourse. 4. intellectual or spiritual interchange; communion. 5. ( initial capital letter ) Also called Commerce Department. Informal . the Department of Commerce. art1    /ɑrt/ Show Spelled[ahrt] Show IPA –noun 1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. 2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. 3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art. 4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture. 5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art. Commercial music - intended for mass distribution and the making of profit. Art music - not intended for mass distribution and the making of profit, but rather "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance" Apparently. Is there overlap? Probably. Commercial music can be "artistic", art music can have "commercial" elements, however the distinction here is in the intent. Is Lady Gaga out there to sell records? You betcha. Is Tristan Murail? Not that I know of. Yes, Bjork, for example, does some "artsy-fartsy", occasionally bitonal, stuff. But the bottom line is that her records are being mass produced, she was signed to a label to sell, and someone there is turning a big profit. Boom, commercial music. Yes, you can buy mass produced CDs of "classical" music, but the intent of the composer was not "oh, this is going to be recorded and mass-produced", the composer was writing for the concert hall. It's like "commercial" art vs. "museum" art. Commercial art = magazines, TV commercials, other kinds of ads. "Museum" art is not intended for that kind of distribution, but rather to be shown in a gallery, etc. I guess its a it-comes-to-you vs. you-go-to-it kind of thing. Yes, its nice to put everything on the same level and say there is no "commercial" and no "art", but different music is produced to serve these different functions. Now, that being said, I don't know that there has to necessarily be the same kind of distinction between "high-brow" and "low-brow". I mean, I'd go ahead and say that Public Enemy's It Takes a Nation of Million's to Hold Us Back is a bigger, and infinitely more important, artistic statement than Mendelssohn's Elijah, but that's just me (I'm sure I just offended a whole bunch of you). It is important to note that "commercial" music seems to have a way bigger cultural impact than "art" music, whether you classical composers like it or not. Yes, there is a whole lot of overlap. But I think the distinction is still pretty clear.

Until you upload either a readable score or a recording that faithfully creates the instrument parts you've written for, I don't think an accurate review can be done of this piece. I don't want to say more than that for sharing an impression which is based on a misunderstanding of what I'm hearing. However I wil say that my first impression is it sounds texturally exciting and engaging, however it's on the simple side as far as harmony and thematic development are concerned. I think you've only got one underlying minor chord the entire time. Is this for marching band?

Hey man. I wouldn't mind being made a reviewer, as opposed to an editor. I think I'd be better at it and it would be more useful generally to the guys here. Here's where I'd excel most: 1. Chamber Music - my main interest area in composing 2. Choral/Vocal- studying harmony and counterpoint in college 3. Large Ensemble (Orchestral)- play in various orchestras and have a fair idea of its uses and limitations. Have have works performed by the college orchestra. Because... [brag] I'm basically a nice guy, when I give my thoughts I try to balance out the raw truth with something constructive so people can learn from my ideas. I don't go out to troll or be mean, and I think I could be of great service to new members or younger guys. I'm also quite articulate so I can express my opinions without sounding like a douche.. I have a good knowledge of composition (I think..), have been composing for some years, and can see possible errors and room for improvement. Been playing music since age of about 6, so have a good bit of experience behind me. ;) I can tell the difference between a masterfully, well thought out composition and one sequenced before breakfast.. [/brag] Think that's it really.

Wow I really liked this! I actually see this as publication material it's just fantastic! I think you've executed the epitome of what being a composer is all about. Normally on this site I see nice efforts, but no actual musical result. This piece however doesn't apply, you've made great effort to make this a wonderful piece and the result is just that. Great job!

Can I be a judge please? :)