Leaderboard

yeah, midi sucks. you can do several things: - get a live preformance - use a vst or soundfonts or something similar - choose another midi instrument that does not sound robot like. are you sure you like the sound of bassoons?

There are several ways to accomplish what you're trying to do. Remember that in addition to the traditional elements of music (melody, harmony, rhythm, etc) you now have some additional "elements" to consider here in crafting your work. Some of these factors are dynamics, pitch duration, rhythmic pattern (in the modern sense, I'll explain below), simple and advanced articulations, etc. So, your freedom to express your overall idea is largely based in more than the traditional elements of melody, harmony, and rhythm. Think about rhythm. In Classicism, rhythm was often used to enhance the overall dissonance. Syncopation is a good example, as it is so often seen in moments of tension in a classic work (i.e. the 1st Movement of Beethoven's Eroica). In modern styles, rhythm has become more of an abstract, independent element. So, where you could say that rhythm in Classicism could assist in clarifying the form of a piece through enhancing a cadential figure, we could say that a rhythmic pattern could establish an entire section of a 12-tone work (which could be said of Classicism as well, except that in most cases, the classic treatment of rhythm may have occurred in opposition to the metrically consonant rhythm of another section). So, it's important to see the difference that a rhythmic pattern is generally not as dependent on other rhythmic patterns in modern styles of 12-tone writing. Consider also that without the dichotomy of consonance and dissonance (or at least the dependence upon it) the connective tissue that unites ideas in a 12-tone work are far less formulaic. In Classicism, the functional relationship between key areas is fairly predictable - a major tonic key area will usually be followed by a dominant key area in another section, and so on. In modern writing, that connective tissue is up to you to generate. Your task as the composer is to aurally convince your listener that a particular element or set of elements connect and unite the work. There is no one single method or formula that does this in the way a Sonata predictably prepares the expectation of a dominant/tonic relationship, at least from the Classical repertoire pre-1900. My best advice is to start small. Take a granular idea, work with all the elements you have available to you to convince yourself and others that the idea -is- a musically inspired idea, and build out from there. I think of music in the 20th Century as "aurally dimensional" in that so many elements, from the timbre of the instrument to the loudness/softness of the notes in the idea, create a kind of 3-D germ of musical thought. You can think of it as sculpting, bringing purpose or meaning or some kind of expression to the surface in the total space of sound where we work. Once you reach this point, structure won't be a problem. I'm really only scratching the surface here, but this should be enough to springboard you forward. EDIT: Also, can we please stop calling it "atonal" music? 12-tone music uses tones... freely. Why don't we call it "free-tone" music or something... just a thought.

The reason I'm bumping this to some extent is that we've had three rehearsals over the piece, noting various things throughout it. We will be performing it on October 10th at our first concert of the season. I will try to get someone to get a decent/good recording of it, because the audio file certainly doesn't do it justice. Okay, let me give you all who have been watching the earlier conversations on "Soaring Against the Wind" some update as to what's gone on. The opening sounds great, though we noticed a few things as far as the dynamics go. The opening crescendo between p and mf and then back to p in the Clarinets and Saxes comes out unbalanced, but this was mainly because of the different idea in everyone's head of what p and mf should be. Clarinets usually overpower Saxes in most circumstances I've seen, so I'm assuming that they were sticking with the idea they needed to be louder. So, we had our 1st chair Clarinet play the low E as soft as possible, and said that's where it needs to start for the p. It came out perfectly after that. Once they figured out it was only going to be a solo Flute at the beginning, they backed off quickly and it came off perfectly. The Oboe isn't as hard to hear, because it certainly pierces on its own, so I had no worries there. And there was a neat thing that happened that I have to alter in the score. The grace note into the C on the flute in measure 17 is written as a Bb, but it was accidentally played as a B natural last night. And I think that just works wonderfully. The Oboe is going to keep the solo at rehearsal 18, and the muted trumpet is being relegated to a cue for the Oboe. I know that tends to conflict with most people's ideas in the past, where it seems like the Trumpet should be the main instrument being featured at this point, but even as a solo and with the mute, it didn't blend as well as it might have. Certainly not as well as the Oboe did by itself (we went back and forth for a few minutes on this). At [40], it got horribly unbalanced. The woodwinds were trying to keep overtop of the Brass/Lower Winds syncopation, but it was one of those things where I had to tell them just because those are staccato does not mean hit them really hard. There's not any accent there, so it still needs to be light. It's been alright, and it's getting better. The two parts of this section I was thoroughly worried about came out fine. The Trumpets in measure 43 switch to the chordal feature with the D-E-D-E-C movement up top, and thankfully they didn't overpower the Winds, even with the Winds having been moved out of the way with the end of their held over notes from the previous measure in anticipation of overpowering. The Horns, also, surprised me by bringing out the countermelody of sorts they have at this point (it's the same as the previous section, but in this instance only the Horns have it), and it was heard perfectly. Ah, yes, the rips at [63]. In a computer audio...they suck. Even when you set it to chromatic glissandos in Finale, they still...suck. However, in real life, they come out great. I specifically asked what those who have them thought of them, and they've said they aren't hard and actually enhance that section. However, we are still debating on whether to do an instant glissando (at the start of the beat), or a more delayed glissando like most bands do (where it almost feels like a massive chromatic grace note). In 97 and 98, where the low brass and saxes have the chords which drop from F major to F major over Eb major to a Db augmented 7th (the Trumpets are still on F, A, C, and the basses have Db, so...enjoy a Db-F-A-C chord!), we had to make certain no one was rushing, so it got to the point where the conductor is giving those notes at the end of the fourth beat. And it was a perfect handover to the winds, so it all worked out in the end. Before submitting it for publication (which everyone in the band thinks I'm an idiot for not having done already, and also those who know publishers have suggested Barnhouse...so I guess I've done something right), I'm trying to determine what the best instrument to cue the Oboe solo in. I currently have it cued in the 1st Alto, but I'm wondering if our band director might like to try giving it to the Euphonium/Baritone instead (obviously an octave down). It would sit comfortably in the middle of the range, and shouldn't be too much of a problem. More on that to come as we go (since we'll have an Oboe, we probably won't attempt it too much). For the first time in his life, or at least so he says, our band director said he wanted the percussion to play LOUDER at [128]. Interesting. It did work wonderfully, and when we hit [135] I suggested we try something different with the percussion part. It's the same in-time problem, but I managed to find a real life work-around. Take the snares off, and drop to underneath the Trumpets instead of matching them. So that worked out fine, and even better, we've got our own little field drum sound going. Everything that happened in the earlier section is done again here between 148 and 190. At 191-194, we tried to slow down, and I had the distinct pleasure of being able to say "Congratulations! You all just got ran over by the train!" in reference to them blowing through the caesura. There has to be just about a half-second of complete silence after the caesura before hitting that chord at 195. And on the final note on the final note, pun intended, those playing that chord on the third/fourth beat of the final measure was always a worry for everyone, but we had more than enough weight to hear the difference. Plus, our director wants the final chord to build after that, as one of those unwritten crescendos that would start at ff, then when the powerful underneath chord shows up on the third beat, to start building up to almost fff. Granted, it's hard to describe in words, but I'm certain everybody understands what I meant. The band is certainly happy with it, and I'm still getting congrats and compliments on having written it.

This was really nice, but you broke some rules, not that it maters in terms of the quality of the piece. In the second half of the second measure, you start another statement of the prime row, when the first prime is half finished. The only time you can have multiple rows going at once, is if they're Combinatorial, so as to maintain the maximum equal emphasis on all tones, or "atonality"--the entire point of the 12-tone method. It's seem that you freely overlap rows in the piece, creating a few moments where tones are over-emphasized, like the unison B-natural on beat 3 of measure 13, and the first two measure definitely emphasis a tonic of A (the progression could be functionally notated like Aaug Emaj-b5 Aaug, which is a modified I V I). The row in generally has a very whole tone scale sound, and there are little dominant tonic progressions like the first one all over the place. This would be fine, if you weren't trying to make an atonal piece, which is the usual purpose of the 12-tone system. There are of course exception this, like in Berg, who used the technique to create tonal music--but it is working against the design. This is more a problem with your labels which makes it them little confusing: why did you label the notes in reference to C when the prime form doesn't start on C (or end on C for that matter)? The common terminology is "prime form" for the transposed row, and then the amount of semi-tones it was transposed for transposed forms of the row. For the notation: it's common to put courtesy accidentals on every note to make it easy to read. This can be a problem like in measure 6, where you have an Ab at the beginning of the measure and an unmarked A, an octave higher, on beat 3: the player might not be sure whether it's supposed to be A or Ab. It's hard enough playing 12-tone music, when add stuff like this, people get frustrated. Also, for the choice of whether to do sharp or flat, there are several options, one of which you choose--which is to choose one, and only use one type of accidental to make it easier to read, which is fine. This may sound counter-intuitive and contradictory, but I like to spell all the notes as if the piece were tonal. This is because players are used to reading tonal patterns, and the notes are usually related to each other in a voice-leading sense which comes from tonality, so it makes it easier for the person looking at the music to understand the flow of the line and the direction of the voice-leading. But that's just my choice, what you did is fine as well, except for courtesy accidentals. Now, I really like this piece. The whole-tone scale stuff makes it have a sort of, strange, floating sound. And motivic unity makes it all sound very ordered, and it was an exciting moment at 29 when the quarter notes and the double eight figuration happened at the same time. I really hope you continue utilize 12-tone technique, because I think it can create some wonderful music, and is a wonderful tool to achieve certain things. And unfortunately, as evidenced by some of the comments in this thread, it's not at all popular these days, and almost no one is writing in a serial or post-serial style, which I find unfortunate.

Judging by this post (and the six subsequent posts you made bashing every single post of mine you could find as well as the private message you sent), I'm glad at how maturely and rationally you're taking my criticism. Truly, you are proving how I am the immature little troll who knows nothing of music and you have full comprehension of your art. Especially given the fact that you didn't actually address anything I said in the post but rather just told to shut up repeatedly. I'm glad.

"Art should be instantly appealing" "Direct responses are more helpful to writing better music than musical analysis" Bruckner, your posts reek of naivety; a kid playing artist who doesn't understand much of anything about his craft of the development of said craft in the last 100 or so years. Your music suggests as such as well. I don't mean to be offensive (though I probably most certainly am). I'm just being blunt with you and epitomizing what everyone else at this thread has pretty much been hinting at. Post scores; it will be extremely rare to get any kind of actually helpful advice without a score. Be willing to change your existing pieces; in my past, I've learned just as much revising old music as I have writing entirely new music. And most importantly, get out of this attitude that art has to be instantly appealing. I mean, personally, I'm opposed to the notion of art being instantly appealing almost altogether. But that's my subjective wish. And if you want to write music that can reach a large audience then sure. There's nothing wrong with that. But don't fall into the mindset of "Well, if I don't instantly like this then obviously, it's crap." It blows my mind how any so-called 'artist' can fall into such a shallow view of their own craft and close them off to so much. So, yeah. I've probably opened this thread up to trolling now but I just felt a need to level with you. I only wish someone had done the same for me when I first came to this site.

I do not know everything. Chances are, when I don't like something, I am missing the point. So, I wanted to give your piece a fair chance. I do not know how I have to interpret your seemingly unwillingness to stand up for your piece. It seems that the music did not convey your ideas; that was why was asking to them. As for a score: its good practice here. For me, I usually enjoy more of a piece when I see the score. As for sharing a piece I made, and I am proud of, I really want to let others take a look into the score. Sharing how I done it. Well I guess there is some difference in opinion. No big deal to me. :D

There are several ways to go about this, but my primary advice would be to concentrate on one thing. For example, study the instrumentation (how is a specific chord divided between instruments? In what registers are the instruments playing? In which dynamics/articulations/techniques? etc.) - and this doesn't only apply to orchestral works! Even "just" a string quartet can be very enlightening in this aspect. Or study the form. If it's a sonata form (such as most first movements of classical string quartets), read up on that form, then try finding the specific parts of said form in that piece. That alone can be very challenging in many of Beethoven's later works - so I'd start out with earlier ones. Or, instead of looking at the broad form, do the contrary and only look at a very small part of the piece, but study it very closely, say, in regards to harmony etc. There are tons of different approaches, most of which are as valid as the others, if you actually concentrate on them and take them seriously. Last but not least, it's a great exercise to simply read a score, without actually analysing, and imagining how it might sound. Alternatively: Try playing it on a piano. If it's too hard to play all of it, try reducing it to something you -can- play, such as just the melody and the harmonies below it and a rough idea of the figurations and rhythms. Just the act of reducing a piece to a playable form on the piano can give you huge insights in the things that define a piece. Or, another related alternative: Try conducting the score to an imaginary group of musicians. Look through it carefully, try to see what the critical parts may be and how you would show different aspects of the piece to your performers. But again: Just be inventive. Just working through score after score with a predetermined method may be useful to some limited degree - but it's often a lot more enlightening to approach it a little bit more "playfully" (which doesn't mean non-seriously...) and challenging yourself to find a new perspective on every new piece you study. And again: Learn to limit yourself. Don't try to "understand everything" about every piece you're looking at. Set yourself specific, limited goals and go for them.

Yeah, I agree. I've found out about some great music from this section, and I actually have gone out and bought a few of the songs that have been suggested here.

I really don't understand why this needs to be so stringent.. It bugs me. :laugh: Providing links to (sometimes copyrighted) material can help raise awareness of good music and it doesnt necessarily have to equal to us condoning piracy. It should be the members' responsibility what they do with the links that are provided.

I have Finale Notepad 09. I am posting my music as a MIDI file opening via Media Player. I am trying to post a Bassoon duet; however, when I listen to it through Media Player, it sounds like to robots having a very lively conversation (not exacly what I was aiming for). I dont really want to mess around with the MIDI settings even through I'm sure I'll have to. Anyway, I need some help!!

"Bruckner, your posts reek of naivety; a kid playing artist who doesn't understand much of anything about his craft of the development of said craft in the last 100 or so years. Your music suggests as such as well." where is ur music? too embarrassed to keep it around? LOL, and you are judging other's music? Why don't u troll somewhere else, why not begin with children's section? oh, and to return the favor. Just to show i am not someone who takes crap from anybody: You are a *BEEEEEP* I hope u r not offended by this, because I really don't mean it, really, i don't mean to be offensive at all!