Leaderboard

There are an almost infinite number of ways you could proceed. Examine some of the many sets of theme and variations by Mozart, Beethoven and others on simple melodies. The 'theme' consists of what you have already. Simple ways to create variation would be: - Write a new melody over the same chord sequence - Put a major-key melody into the minor or vice versa - Put the melody in the bass and have the chords on top - Repeat the melody over a new chord sequence, which will probably be more chromatic and adventurous. More complex ways: - write the melody in canon with itself (if this can be made to work) - have the melody played at half speed as an accompaniment to a new idea. - write a new idea based on only a few notes of the original melody (this is called motivic development and is similar to what you hear in jazz improvisation) Other ideas: - Repeat the melody but with a change each time until it turns into something new (a bit like minimalism) - Change the rhythms - Use the same notes as the original melody, but put the actual pitches several octaves above or below those of the original to create a melody that leaps about. - have the notes of the melody played on two instruments alternating with each other (known as hocketing) Hope this gives some food for thought. Also consider the actual notion of 'melody' itself. Does this have to mean a recognisable 'tune'? Does it have to be 8/16 bars long? Can anything be melody?

Those darned birdies! New York has a real bird-in-concert-hall problem. Why can't get those hunters out to shoot the darned things?! :headwall: *so dramatic*

A statement like this really represents your lack of knowledge concerning music pre-1850. Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Handel, Machaut, Palestrina, Dittersdorf, and many others felt that creativity and originality was important in art. Yes, they built on foundations - much as we do today - but you can clearly hear differences when listening to each. Take Vivaldi and Handel, for example, you can't really say there are no differentiating characteristics between the two. The same is true for Beethoven and Mozart. Haydn and Schubert. Mendelssohn and Schumann. Wagner and Verdi. Schoenberg and Webern. Xenakis and Ligeti. I could go on. I think the historical record of music clearly reflects that creativity and originality have ALWAYS BEEN a defining force, so much of the idea that this force is NOT universally valid. The three points I gleamed, highlighted above, are: 1. The overemphasis of innovation, revolutionizing, and lack of emphasis on craft has lead to a crisis and erosion of Western Aesthetic Ideals. 2. Why write music that is so new and exciting that it can be accessible or enjoyed by an elite few, i.e. serialism or 'chance' music? 3. The challenge to art today is to use and carefully transform the old traditions in order to express things that are relevant to us today - as in the vein of Arvo Part and John Tavener. Ok, to address these three points: 1. So, your saying that we overemphasize innovation in music. The more innovative and original the work, the better the composer. The history of Western Classical Music has, for the past 1000 years, been built on a tradition of musical expansionism. We see this from the simple monophony of early composers to the extreme polyphony of composers in the Renaissance to the contrapuntally rich fugues of Bach to the extremely complicated formalistic fugues of Mozart and Beethoven to the richly harmonic polyphonic works of later day composers - each have built upon innovation, revolutionization, and creativity/originality. In these composers lifetimes, ALL OF THEM, were faced with an audience that did not understand there works. We often look back at the works of these Masters as being widely accepted and listened to IN THERE TIME by everyone. The truth is, that was not the case. In the 1700s and 1800s, at most 95% of the population couldn't even afford to feed themselves - let alone attend a concert. Classical music, at this time, was the music of the aristocracy - and was attended by the aristocracy. Yes, as the Industrial Revolution rose there emerged a Middle Class. As the 19th Century faded into the 20th Century, the Middle Class was able to become 'cultured'. I would recommend, by the way, taking a class on Folk Music. I enjoyed the course - it really opened my eyes on the evolution of that often forgotten -on this forum- music of the 'common folk'. Bach, while we love him today, was NOT a composer wildly known amongst the largest class of people at that time, unless of course, you were lucky to be in the congregation of the church he was organist at. 2. Why should I write music that is inaccessible to a few (i.e. serialism or alleatoric music) Well, my answer to that is simple: because I can. I find that kind of music to be challenging on a number of fronts. For one, it is NOT easy to make either style of music well. With both types, you have a lot of factors you have to take into account. Avoidance of a key, or supremacy of one note over another, means you have to do other things to sustain interest. Many of these things are barely focused on in writing 'tonal' music (whatever that term may truly mean.) Not relying on a 'tried and true' progression means you have to overcome obstacles in different ways. This is no different, really, than the obstacles Bach created for himself in his fugues. Or the obstacles Mozart created for himself in his vocal writing. Or the obstacles Beethoven created for himself in the forms he adapted to fit his ideas. 3. I agree with the countless of composers who have come before me. The challenge of my art today is to build upon the old traditions and contribute to them with my own unique perspective. I don't just look at composition as an 'old tradition' that has to be adapted for relevancy today. I view music as being relevant regardless of whether it takes into account old traditions or not. It's an appendage of human culture. The whole of human culture does NOT transform old traditions. We, as a species, have continuously added new things to our cultural expression. Many of these new things have, many times, conflicted with old traditions. That is what being human is - constant change and adaptation. You can't have it both ways. That said, I think the challenge to composers today is not to transform old traditions to express things that are relevant but instead is to take the things that are relevant today and express them humanistically. I don't speak the language of my forefathers - nor do I dress/act/behave the way that they did. I'm sure you don't either. So why should I use their musical language?

Hopefully someone with Sibelius chops can chime in on exactly what to do to accomplish this in Sibby. This post/thread will replace the unfortunately outdated one currently pinned. Here it is: 1- HOW TO CREATE A PDF SCORE FROM FINALE and 2- HOW TO CREATE AN MP3 RENDERING OF YOUR .MUS FILE. How to create a PDF score. Step 1) Go to one of these sites and download a free pdf creating software. CutePDF - Create PDF for free, Free PDF Utilities, Save PDF Forms, Edit PDF easily. Free PDF Creator - Convert to PDF from Any File You Can Print - PrimoPDF PDF Split and Merge I recommend PrimoPDF. Step 2) Open your .mus file and select "print." Click the "setup" button and from the list of printers and select "PrimoPDF" as your printer. Step 3) Click "Print" Step 4) Tell the dialog box which appears to create a pdf. Finale Step) Choose a location to save to and name your document. How to create an mp3 rendering of your .mus file Step 1) Download a free wav to mp3 converter if you have no other software for it. Step 2) Open your finale/.mus file and select under the File dropdown menu "export to audio file" Step 3) Choose a location and name for your file and click "save" Final Step) Open your new WAV to mp3 converter, find your file and designate a target name for your to-be mp3. Be sure to select a higher bit-rate Done. You now have a pdf and mp3 of your Finale document!

Dontcha just love false dichotomies and non sequiturs? BTW, Jason, if its SUCH a waste of time, then don't bother to respond. Walls of text don't mean much on the internet. In the time it took you to reply, you probably could have written a short piano sonata or two (optimistically of course :P).

You are stating in this above sentence that you personally believe that there is an overmphasis on innovation and revolutionization, and the corresponding de-emphasis of what you call the craft or trade of music, which has been growing gradually worse since about 1850, and that this has lead to a major crisis in Western aesthetic ideals, to the point of almost eroding them into non-existence. Those are your words. Yes, I realize that your not saying that music from 1300 is the same as the music of 1700. But, your stating that the innovation and revolutionization in music was not as bad as it is today - when this is clearly not true! If it were true, then we would expect to see much more similarity in the music of Machaut and the Music of Bach. Or the music of Monteverdi and the music of Beethoven. This is SIMPLY not the case. Thus, your concept is severely flawed. Did it not exist?? So Bach, for example, didn't view himself as an 'artist' who expressed himself in a way that is original? Keep in mind, Bach was contrary to his peers - many of whom considered him to be starkly old fashioned. Clearly, if Bach were not sticking with the 'artistic ideal' that (you claim) came into being in the 19th century, then we would expect Bach to be identical to Vivaldi, Handel, Buxtehude, etc. Since Bach is not similar to these other contemporaries of his time, it is safe to assume that Bach was indeed originally expressing himself in a radical way that is characteristic of the 'ideal of an artist'. This is NO different than Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Cage, Beethoven, Schumann, Mozart, Haydn, Dittersdorf, Monteverdi, Palestrina, Xenakis, etc. If you want to remove the 'ideal of an artist as one who against all odds expresses him/herself in a way that is radically, and in a sense absolutely, original' and completely isolate from periods post 1800, then by all means, Bach was clearly not an artist at all. Right? Well, I don't particularly appreciate you coming here and stating things that you assume to be fact that are not. I also don't appreciate you taking offense to things said in a 'discussion forum' over a topic such as this. If you don't want to hear opinions or read statements that are contrary to your, rather close minded, view on music history, then please don't post and save those of us who are serious about our craft our time.

Only the ignorant readily accuse others of ignorance. Did I say that originality and creativity were absent pre-1850? Well, did I? No. What do you think I am? Some kind of moron who only listens to Bach? Of course I know that music from 1300 is vastly different from that from 1700, and that this didn't come about by composers just copying another. And you know what, I think that's a good thing. What I was saying is that in the Romantic period there arose this ideal of the artist (composer) as one who against all odds expresses him/herself in a way that is radically, and in a sense absolutely, original. This ideal, I repeat, did not exist prior to the 19th Century, except perhaps in a few isolated eccentrics. Also, I meant to say that this ideal has become so thoroughly perverted over the course of the 20th Century that it has lost all touch with reality and given us "music" such as Cage's "4:33", or random noise as ordinary people call it. I won't address your other points right now, as it's rather late and I need some sleep. Let me just say that I don't particularly enjoy being lectured to on "what it means to be human" (whatever you mean by that). You're not in a better position to know what a human is than I am, pal.

Interestingly, that's fine and dandy but it's been over a hundred years since modernism, and even guys like Boulez don't think the same way they did in the 50s (if they still live.) I don't care about being "innovative" or "revolutionary" in as much as I care about opening the door for it to naturally happen by way of actually allowing people to be creative. There was no "crisis" of aesthetic ideals, just a large diversification of what was being made. For diverse music, a diverse public. Hell I'm going to a festival this weekend for modern compositions (the majority are premieres.) There's plenty of people interested in this stuff. The entire issue tackled by the futurists of early 20th century was the asphyxiating grasp of tradition which suffocated anything different than "the greats" (whoever they may be.) And certainly this still exists today sadly given what you're saying and how I hear this often from people who themselves only aspire to be copies of those they admire. It's fine if you want to do that when you're young, you don't know any better. Later on however, being able to think for yourself is way more important. As for 1850? That's quite an arbitrary date, isn't it? Why not trace it back to 1400? I mean goddamn that Machaut, loving up rhythms and the classic polyphony! Honestly, again, if you want to just copy your heroes, that's your business. I'm just saying that others don't have to necessarily follow this, or that it's even something to recommend. It's the typical stance of people who just started and I hear it extremely (EXTREMELY) often here on the site and outside. Most do get over it eventually. ps: The only one stopping it from making music is your own perception of what music is, which is only personal to you. This is the typical, again, stance from people who haven't really studied 20th century art history. After all, can sound along a timeline lack a structure at all? If you get down to it, everything has a defined structure in retrospective.

With all due respect, but I suppose you (and many others as well) are way too caught up in this essentially 19th Century - and by no means universally valid - idea that creativity and originality is the alpha and omega of art (music in particular). I simply think it's not. Is writing a good 18th Century style fugue - which I'd really be interested in doing by the way, if I had the talent - necessarily inferior as art to, say, inventing your own new harmonic language? I'd say no. (A lovely example of neo-baroque composition: .)Personally I believe that this overemphasis on innovation and revolutionizing, and the corresponding de-emphasis of what I call the craft or trade of music, which has been growing gradually worse since about 1850, has lead to a major crisis in Western aesthetic ideals, to the point of almost eroding them into non-existence. What's the point in writing exciting new music if it's so new and exciting as to be only accessible or enjoyable to an elite few? (I'm thinking serialism or aleatoric music here, not your own compositions, which I respect.) I'm not saying that we should just stupidly repeat or regurgitate the past, if that were even possible. The major challenge of art in our days, as I see it, is to use and carefully transform old traditions in order to express things that are relevant to us today. But that of course entails thoroughly knowing and understanding those traditions. My "archetype" of the truly modern composer is Arvo Paert (his later, tonal phase, that is), or even more extremely John Tavener.

Yeah sure, everything has a structure, as per the laws of physics and mathematics. So, does that make everything art? If so, what's the point of saying "art" instead of "just anything"? I recently listened to 4:33 by John Cage, for example. It, or rather what it stands for, cannot cease to annoy the crap out of me. By the way, I think I'm going to compose this really beautiful symphony, using my own farts.. :) By the way, who says that I didn't study 20th Century art history? (Which you seem to be implying.) Not everyone who studies, say, 13th Century art history necessarily accepts 13th Century art as having much merit in and of itself. Simply because we were born in the 20th Century (I suppose you're older than 11) and still live in its wake, so to say, doesn't mean that we don't have the right to say that much of the "art" produced in that century is worthless, indulgent, self-congratulating rubbish. I seriously believe that Western civilization is in a state of decay, and that its art reflects it. This conviction is growing stronger and stronger, the more I study modern society and its art. A wholesale return to our cultural or even religious roots would do us lot of good. But on the other hand, the antagonism between reactionaries and progressives can't really be resolved, not now at least. History will decide perhaps. I can at least see how the 20th Century might possibly be viewed as somewhat of an anomaly, a period of extreme decadence - or not. I'm happy to have mathematics as an escape; at least there's real progress in that.