Leaderboard

As far as the lyrics go, I can't comment on them since I don't speak German -- so I'll just go by what I see/hear musically. (On a side note, don't you mean just D Minor instead of D flat Minor?) First off, I like the actual main melody of the piece, and how it develops as the piece progresses into a triumphal (?) climax. I also appreciate the key changes, which seemed appropriate given the length of the piece :) And the voice leading never felt awkward to my ears. Some things which did feel a bit awkward was the modulation at 24 -- if you were going for a smooth transition into G Major, then I think you may want to include some F#s in the measures before to make it smoother. However, if you intended for the modulation to be a little jarring, perhaps to make it really stand out, then just keep it as is. Also, despite the actual key changes, your harmonic work inside of each key has not a single accidental, and I think it's really limiting your options available to your work here. Did you keep it that way to keep the purity of a German folk style? If not, I think it'd be a good idea to really try out some different harmonies and see if you can add more flavor and spice to your work here. What you have here was very nice to listen to :phones: Thanks for sharing! :nod:

This is interesting as post-Bach fugues are something very different. Bach himself began exploring with the shifting paradigm of blurring the lines between exposition and development, as well as extremely large subjects (BWV 543 circa 1730, for example.) Mozart (KV 608, for example) favored double fugues, but continued the late Bach tendencies but mixed a series of styles. The 608 Fantasia in F is in the form of a Buxtehude toccata with the northern subject patterns with repeating notes that Bach also adopted in many of his works. After the baroque period Fugues were seen as very "old hat," and no composer really wanted to do style copies for the sake of doing them. Instead, what we get is pushes in different directions that attempt to combine various elements of the new forms and materials into the fugue culminating into the paradigm that the entire canon of western music can be divided into two major points: the Fugue and the Sonata. Beethoven's fugues are attempts to combine techniques from sonata (the development and motive economy) as well as form structure into fugues, while retaining the exposition but blurring the line between the development and further expositions leading to fugues where it's hard to tell if a subject's being exposed or it's simply motive development. Later composers pushed further and further, notably during the late 19th century composers like Grieg (Fugue in F minor for SQ) even further experimented turning the subject into a flexible thing that could also serve as accompaniment (one of the major characteristics of the romantic) as opposed to being the focal point of attention. By Grieg's fugue it's easy to identify an exposition that has more in common with a sonata exposition with two themes, which alternate in a bizarre mix-form of both. Later, with Hindemith, Stravinsky, Schostakovich, etc the fugue becomes again a focal point, being re-interpreted over and over this time including many new elements and theories, sometimes building further from the romantic mix-forms, others adhering to strict baroque tendencies with new sound models (Durufle's fugues, Ludus tonalis by Hindemith, Schostakovich's 24 preludes and fugues.) And even to this day, there's so much that can be done with the simple ideas presented in a fugue. Because, when it comes down to it, a fugue is a free form composition with very barebones rules that only relate to aesthetic elements in the counterpoint and very little to the form, leaving much room to add and substract things while retaining the "fugue-like" characteristics. Bach's experiments with form in his fugues are nothing but legendary in this regard, each tackling different problems and finding different solutions. So yeah, I hope this gives some historical overview of the topic.

First of all: Thank you very very much for your review! :-) Oh damn :-D My fault. Thanks! Yes, i do understand "triumphal" and this is what i wanted to achieve. :-) Actually i was allready thinking about this, but i decided not to do it because i wanted to make it stand out a little more to refresh the interest :-) But ill try your idea the next time for shure (havent done any real chromatic modulation till now) :D Yes, this was definetly intended because i wanted to make it as singable as possible (i have no real idea about writing for voice.) Therefore if tried to avoid harmonic experiments as much as possible. Im planning to include various harmonic experiments in my next piece :-) (I think i actually need a teacher to learn it faster and not autodidact :-/ ) I am very greatful for that! :-) Thank you for your review! :-)

I hate Wagner. Usually a composer will write stuff that is fun to listen to, or fun to play, or both. Wagner is an exception. Can't listen to it, always hate playing it.

Bach isn't that great of an example as he was a little crazy as well. How he himself learned had a lot more to do with copying other people's music and playing a fuckload of music (and improvising a LOT) than with how he actually taught others, which is interesting. In other words, he wanted to produce copies of himself rather than actually teach people composition, but seeing as this is 1700ish it's easy to see why the backwards mentality.

It's simple, just like it helps a writer to actually write, a composer is only good so long as they're actually writing. Once something is written, you can test it, you can analyze it and compare it (this looks like beethoven, this sounds like brahms, this seems like ligeti, etc) and it creates a very precious feedback loop. You don't necessarily have to hear what you wrote, if you analyzed and know your literature, you'll instantly recognize style characteristics you DO know how they sound like (afunctional 3rd chords stringed together with ring a little like french modernism, heavy chromatic lines sound like early atonality, etc.) You can get the "gist" of what you're doing all the same, which is sometimes just enough. Other times it isn't enough and you need to try it out, which is fine too. Many, MANY composers used a piano for this, or a harpsichord (or organ,) and it's understandable also: our brain can't handle as much information as we think it can. No matter how you imagine X or Y sounds like, you can approximate it as much as you want in your head, the feedback loop is much better if you actually heard it back, rather than having to imagine it. It's simply how we work, we require all the information we can get to make better decisions and having to hear what we wrote is much, much better than having to just imagine it (but like I said above, there are many ways to properly imagine what you wrote that sidestep typical "ear training" nonsense.) Computers HAVE already produced music, and in reality if it sounds like Mozart or any other composer it simply depends on the code programmed to make it follow rules. After all, having a computer simulate something ex post facto is easy since we have all the material we want to emulate readily available, all it takes is writing the simulation parameters code. Another question entirely is if the output of random number generator coded to output musical material and values qualifies as music. I think it does, obviously, but since it's random chances are the output could be very different (and interesting?) I've only tried this a few times, but every time it was a very interesting experience to see what kind of random things would pop up and sounded great. 1) You're cool. 2) I want to add, not only it would be possible to teach someone deaf composition, but it's quite likely that it would engage them intellectually if they could get over the fact they can't hear their end product. I think the biggest barrier here is psychological, not something purely technical. You can also teach a blind person to paint, but their inability to engage in a feedback loop with their own work will hinder them invariably psychologically just like it would hinder us to paint on an invisible canvas with invisible ink.

It is VERY incomplete lol. Why else would it be in the "incomplete works section" XD