Leaderboard

I agree with Cramer that the piece has form, an ABAB, sort of -- the grand staves coupled with the leggiero arpeggio section. When you say it doesn't have form, do you simply mean that it's meant to be freeform? :hmmm: I too believe the thematic material is interesting and strangely beautiful -- definitely a keeper. I enjoy the dissonance of the grandiose beginning, with the uneven meter and the soft flowing feeling of the B section. :) In fact, to be absolutely honest, I don't really feel like there's anything wrong with the piece at all -- even transition issues. There doesn't seem to be anything a convincing and experienced performer couldn't make work. However, I don't want to discourage you from trying to better yourself, of course, since that would defeat the entire point of me commenting. That's my opinion -- if you are not happy with your own piece, you must work until it is as you imagine it being :nod: Maybe you would like it better if you started subtly introducing some arpeggios as a second voice in pianissimo in measures 14-19? Just a thought. Thanks for sharing, this piece was a real pleasure to listen to :phones:

A seisimeric, some might even say pelivinian, attempt to wuzzolify the quidliness of you depoobliosity. Poopin' in the Dark Poopin' in the Dark

I wish my poops were this epic.

I basically agree with those comments, however, I must say those chords are AMAZING! I mean, like, I wish I came up with those! Just really a really cool piece :D It seems like it would be hard to play, but I'm not the worlds best pianist anyways, so that's that. Thanks for posting this! I enjoyed it a lot :) Heckel

Woah, woah, woah. Double standard much? You say people who write in a "modern" or w.e style are awesome and the cutting edge of musical progress and you rail against anyone who disproves this. And yet, you do the same to the classicists who do not want to write in a modern style but in a new version of an older style. Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black? Practice what you preach, brah.

What I don't understand is why it's OK for academics - or anyone else, really - to make the kind of pronouncements you're making SSC. I hear a lot of judgments. So what if, as you say, doing what we historicists do is like only eating cheeseburgers for the rest of our lives? If the music is quality, and a lot of it is, then what difference does that make? Setting one's feet in and vowing derision, sight unseen, merely on principle, of anything that doesn't happen to fit one's own values - that sounds like the kind of thing this thread is arguing against. It seems to me that we all need to set aside our prejudices a bit more. It's true we can't judge the value of a work of art without some kind of standard to hold it against, and that's part of why we're all here; but to automatically dismiss as worthless anything that doesn't happen to match our values is short-sighted. A person like that can have all kinds of letters after his name, but that doesn't make him any less a bigot.

INTRO Since there's no possible that any course anywhere is able to cover all literature existing in depth, it's important to teach then the tools by which one can analyze without being dependent on a teacher or course. This is a small introduction to the subject of harmony analysis and how there are different systems and methods for looking at it. I'm not going to cover every single method in the universe (no reduction analysis for example,) but the most general ones. Everything else is a derivation or a simplification of the same type of principles so it shouldn't be hard to grasp any other system if these are well understood. We'll be talking about "harmony" here in two senses: 1) As any given sounds played simultaneously. 2) As harmonic functions, which are a sequence of sounds played simultaneously. Therefore "harmony" is not simply the vertical aspect of sound composition, but also the sequential art in which to organize vertical sound formations. 1) Vertical thinking, chord anatomy and figured bass With "vertical" we're implying the observation of sounds happening simultaneously across a timeline as opposed to sequentially ("horizontally.") In brief, the transition from the horizontal linear thinking to vertical began happening slowly in the pre-baroque era and was cemented with the conception of the figured bass. The figured bass is most likely the oldest form of pure-harmonic analysis, although it only functions the first sense of harmony as defined above: it simply outlines the anatomy of the chord. The anatomy of the chord is namely out of which intervals it is composed of and their relative positions (often only the bass is given a specific octave register.) For instance, a 6 written under an E in the bass clef would mean that the anatomy of the chord to play is a 6th from that tone, a 3rd and the octave. The reason why nobody writes the entire sequence of numbers is simply out of tradition and to simplify the writing as almost all symbols have similar patterns. The benefit of figured bass is that you can adapt it to literally any kind of harmony or chord anatomy, as all that is needed is simply the given intervals. It's entirely possible to analyze both Bach and Boulez using figured bass, but the practicality of doing this may vary. Because figured bass is so simple in that it only concerns itself with chord anatomy, it also lacks style-specific functionality. It addresses only the first meaning of harmony (chord anatomy) without concerning itself with relationships across a timeline. Hence, from this system two other systems were conceived that do attempt to deal with both aspects of harmony cited above. 2) Harmonic analysis using scale degrees Dating from around 1800, conceived by Jacob Gottfried Weber (1779–1839) and later developed further by Simon Sechter (1788–1867), this system bases itself around the concept of a root tone from which a diatonic scale is built. From this scale, each degree of the scale is then used as the root tone from which a chord (in 3rds) is built. The degrees then are named using roman numerals (I to VII) and used in relation to one another. This system also tackles chord anatomy the same way figured bass does, but the main distinction is the observation of the key in which the relationships take place. Therefore, now it becomes possible to abstractly refer to chord relationships such as I -> V or II -> V, and so within a major/minor tonality framework. Clearly this analysis system then is narrower in scope to figured bass, but because it observes relationships across a timeline as well as vertical chord anatomy we can find its use for analyzing music based on major/minor tonality much more straight forward. Because of this, while it's theoretically possible to analyze music outside of major/minor tonality, it will not benefit from the abstract formulation of chords relationships and of course without a given "key" in the traditional sense it becomes harder to establish from which degree it's being talked about. Analysis by degrees can be seen as a middle ground between attention to chord anatomy (objective analysis (and quantification) of musical material) and interpretation of harmonic context (keys, relationships between chords, and so on.) 3) Analysis by harmonic functions Conceived by Hugo Riemann in 1893 and later developed further by people like Diether de la Motte, Wilhelm Maler and Hermann Grabner, the idea here is almost the complete theoretical abstraction for a form of analysis that observes very specific relationships (called "functions.") In this, not only is it possible to conceive of entire harmonic passages entirely using theoretical constructs, but the degree of interpretation left by the analyst is much greater than by analysis by degrees. This system observes the same idea of scale degrees and root tone from degree analysis, but with a major difference: the interpretation of functions don't always correspond with the actual chord anatomy or musical material. A good illustration of how both systems differ and where their strengths and weaknesses lie is in the analysis of a simple 6-4 5-3 suspension in a perfect cadence (V - I or D - T.) Where the analysis by degrees will consider the suspension chord a root (I) chord with the 5th in bass, functions will consider it dominant (D) by virtue of the cadence context, in spite of the actual notes present. Functions observe the "intention" of the passage rather than the raw musical material, and as such it relies heavily on interpretation. In fact, to consider such a cadence a "suspension" is also by virtue of thinking the "suspension" chord is actually not really the tonic or I, but rather a "suspended" dominant (or V) chord despite having the actual sound and notes from a tonic (or I) chord. The same happens with different types of chords such as the VII6 which is viewed as an altered dominant (V) form, despite being actually a diminished triad where the 5th degree isn't even present (called a "shortened" dominant 7th in functions.) The usefulness of this system lies in that it becomes possible to deal with extremely complex harmonic passages in a way that may highlight a common direction. The weakness is in that there could be several possible interpretations for a given harmonic passage in functions (where in degrees the scope is lessened as they need to be based on the actual tones.) Because of the even narrower scope, functions are very difficult to apply to anything that doesn't rely on major/minor tonality, and even then even late 1800 music contained many segments which were "functionless." Going even further back, even Mozart can be observed to have "functionless" passages when analyzed with this theory, though not nearly in the same degree as later composers. A "functionless" segments are segments where this analysis theory is inapplicable as A) it's difficult to establish a root chord (T) and thus functions are impossible to draw out and/or B) there are jumps not predicted or expected by functions, such as passing chords or chords conceived through entirely chromatic movement. This is where degrees would have a slight advantage, as you could still write down the anatomy and position of the chords in relation to the scale depending on how violent the changes are. 4) Which one to use? For what? As a good rule of thumb, an analysis system is only really useful in analyzing music it was designed to analyze. Surely you can write figured bass marks on Stockhausen, but the benefits are doubtful. Likewise, where it's possible to analyze late baroque works with functions (Bach's chorales and so on) the further you go back the harder it is to analyze anything (Louis Couperin's preludes are often almost entirely functionless!) And of course, the further you go back the less music has to do with vertical thinking and chords to begin with leaving you with a very difficult to interpret horizontal line from which to guess any kind of harmony. There are well-known ways to blur harmony, as well. The less voices used the harder it is to infer detailed harmonic analysis, so you instead have to settle half-way. This is a problem that plagues much of baroque music if vertical harmonic analysis is attempted (Bach's inventions, french suites, etc.) There is also the question of rhythm and identifying different elements that can be purposely hidden (uneven harmonic rhythm and interrupted cadences, etc.) As well as observing and interpreting hierarchies (not confusing harmony-central notes as passing notes and vise-versa.) Another stumbling point is the variety of symbols and standards, where different schools use different ways of analysis within the same system (some schools for instance ignore the "Gegenklang" versions of the parallel chords as being redundant save for interrupted cadence exceptions, others don't. Ugh.) As for modern analysis, such as by Bartok or Hindemith, functions are useless and degrees aren't very helpful either unless you are able to identify elements that relate back to tradition. In music that uses entirely different idioms (Ligeti, Cage) you should resort to organizing the musical elements as they are rather than resorting to any abstract system unless the composition employs organization systems that can be abstracted (Xenakis, Babbitt, Varese.) 5) In conclusion You should've probably picked a different hobby, man.

Mr. Woodruff, that's the point I've been trying to make my whole life. :)

It's funny though, I posted works on YouTube - mostly modern piano works. I commented on the work of a Gianluca Bersaneti (I think I got that right), cause I felt the work I had listened to could've been done a lot better. He seemed to hide behind embellishments and the counterpoint just wasn't that imaginative. His response was to create a second youtube account and accuse me of having a big ego, voted down all my works, and then claim I had no knowledge of counterpoint, harmony, and orchestration. Mind you, all my works on YouTube were piano works - kind of hard to mess up the orchestration on those. Using the YouTube insight to view how long he viewed my works (under 3 secs each), it was clear to me that his complaint had less to do with the actual quality of my work but instead his view that modern works (As a whole) are inferior to anything else previously. It's this kind of thing that irks me beyond end - especially considering I love all types of music! It's a shame that composers can't appreciate each other without looking at the styles they compose.

Oh God... if only I'd known you were going to do that, I might have saved you the trouble. Gianluca is, well, volatile. He's one of those who can't take any form of criticism. There have been a few of those here, too, who go off volcanically when anyone dares question or critique them; though I won't name any names, I'm sure you know whom I might be talking about. The only critique I ever saw fit to make of Gianluca's work was a piano quartet he wrote in a ca. 1790 Classical style; I merely pointed out that he'd written several high-Gs in, and most fortepianos didn't yet have a high-G in the time period he was emulating (one has only to look at Beethoven's first 15 sonatas and first 2 piano concerti to know this, and Gianluca prides himself on score-study). His response was was very high-strung, though he did admit he was grateful. I never made the mistake again, though.

It's comical now, especially the 'orchestration' errors in my solo piano works! I just lol'd really. I know I'm not the best composer BUT I'm grateful that I have a mind on my shoulders and am able to learn the things I'm lacking on. It's just comical really.

In Gianluca's defense, I would only add that it's likely his hypersensitivity - and that of many historicists - is born of years, even decades, of discouragement and even outright ridicule at the hands of the academic community. We're making inroads, but it's been a long time coming. I quit college because my professors told me that not only could I not do what I was doing as a composer under their tutelage, but I couldn't do it EVER. Where does anyone, especially a teacher, get off saying something like that? Thankfully I've learnt how to take a little criticism, but if Gianluca can't yet, we might consider the possible reason for that.

Where the gently caress have I done that? I've said that there is no loving cutting edge of anything, I've maintained this position for practically years now. The avantgarde is dead and all that you're saying is just bullshit projection of what you imagine my position is, but not at all what I've kept constantly saying because your reading disability prevents you from remembering scraggy like this. No, that'd be practice what you say I'm preaching, which I'm not. At all. What makes you think that what I'm saying doesn't apply to modern writing as well? There's plenty of people out there who make the effort to sound like X or Y current popular composer for contests, etc, out of fashion or trendiness. It's just as stupid. I don't think writing in any given style automatically makes you amazing, that's idiotic. I don't think that people have to only limit themselves to writing "modern" (whatever that may be) since this is also idiotic. I'm against people limiting themselves to any single style (as a lifelong thing) and I don't care WHICH style this is. As for "new version" of an old style, that's neoclassicism and is, ho ho ho, "modern." I'm all for THAT. What I'm against is attempted 100% "accurate" replicas as a lifelong goal, I don't care of what.

Bitonality exists just fine, but who mentioned this at all in the thread? I thought he was asking about polytonality.

Quality eh? I don't know, to me it all seems some kind of bizarre worship relationship where it doesn't really matter what anyone writes, but only that it be according to that one style, ensuring that whatever comes out is only just a copy which will, again, live in the shadow of the preferred warhorse. I can hardly call composing something that is explicitly void of creativity and only aims to copy. It's a good theory exercise I suppose. It's also a way to just remain comfortable and cozy, since despite whatever comparisons you can always say "like X! See?" to justify anything you did, taking away any kind of responsibility the composer may have had for the piece. In fact, that's why this bothers me so much: if composition is making decisions then this is simply a large single decision to auto-pilot as all decisions have been made for you ahead of time. And really that's not how any of the warhorses worked at all, they broke things and bent rules accordingly, they are known for their decisions and not just blatant copying. It's kind of a disservice to their creativity as composers to do only recreations, because none of them did this. In fact, all those warhorses? They wrote "new music" and were rather modern for their time, haha. The irony.