Leaderboard

If "harmony" is whatever you want it to be, then why use the term at all since it takes longer to explain what you mean with "harmony" than to just say it outright. And, everything has "pitch," the problem is simply the perception of pitch. Since percussion varies in this regard, saying "non-pitched" percussion is a practical solution that isn't factually accurate, but works well enough to separate instrument groups given the perception of pitch. This is the same thing we do when we call instruments by different names depending on the sound they produce. To me, harmony is simply a term to describe tonal relationships within a specific set of music. More than that is making the term meaningless. It's like saying a boat is a "new kind" of car, therefore we can call them as well "cars" instead of boats, or that airplanes are a "different kind" of bird, thus we can call them birds instead. This doesn't work for obvious reasons. The main question could've as well been "can you escape cars?" And then defining everything you interact with as a car, lol.

Firstly, that kind of language will get you banned. I am not the sort of busybody who delights in taking offence in behalf of absent minorities, but 'spastic' is crude, offensive and not a word you should ever require in a public space. Wolfgang, like the vast majority of users here, is trying to provide you with valuable constructive criticism, and you insult him in return for making a very reasonable request. We are not a review dispensing service and have no obligation to provide you with any feedback on any of your music, so you should be grateful that he is sufficiently interested in your work to ask this in order to be able to do so. Secondly, just stop and consider for a moment why we might be so insistent on having you put a score of your piece up instead of 'just listening to it'. Thought of any reasons? Here's five just off the top of my head. First, it means reviewers can point out exactly what they are talking about. If I want to comment on something you write, it's a hundred times clearer for us both if I say 'the D# in bar 56' or 'the timpani entry four bars after figure D' rather than 'some wind instrument after the loud bit a couple of minutes from the start'. It simply doesn't work with a recording. Second, it allows us to see things not apparent to the ear. If you write a melody for two bassoons, a horn, three clarinets and the viola section in unison, only the most experienced ear can hear that exact combination of instruments, and even then with difficulty if the recording is MIDI. Thirdly, many of us like to 'hear' the score by looking at it on the page rather than have a poor computer-synthesised version. Fourth, many things are easier to spot when looking at a graphical representation of the music. String bowings, articulations, phrase markings, instrumental doublings, and many more. Fifth, assuming you intend at some point for actual musicians to perform your work, the correct preparation of a score and parts is as important as the quality of the music itself and you should give it equal care and attention. Performers - and being a semi-professional one myself I can safely speak with authority here - hate badly written or badly presented parts, even to the point of refusing to play the work if they can. You can imagine what this does to the reputation of a composer, which is why all good composers produce a decent score and parts.

Some people think this. Some people just don't care since it doesn't matter in the end. After all, would you like Mozart less if you learned he couldn't do melody dictation or sight-read melodies? The output from a composer is all that matters in the end, and it's not really relevant how they got to it. I mean, there's people who couldn't even read or write music and were fantastic musicians. Narrow-mindedness with scraggy like this is PRECISELY the reason why it's so pointless as it overlooks that it MAY be useful, but it may also not be.