Leaderboard

bumped up because it deserves to be for at least one more day

I know I've said this countless times before, but it gets on my nerves having to look at "Starving Musician" over and over under my avatar. Can you put in an option to change this? Or if it already exists, can you direct me to it?

Hey everyone! Since I've been back from Ireland, I decided to take some time before I jump into new projects to assemble something from earlier in the year. I participated in an orchestral recording session dedicated to showcasing good orchestration among young composers in the Guild of Canadian Film Composers (now the Screen Composers Guild of Canada) and I was fortunate enough to have my piece recorded. The performance was not up to my expectations, and so, discouraged, I left it on my harddrive and moved on. Having had some time pass now though, I wanted to take it up again and try my hand at salvaging it. And so, from the 165 various audio stems (spot mics, hall mics, etc etc.) I have assembled the following version of the recording, which manages to omit most of the worst intonation issues. It's not perfect, but it's a good representation of the piece: Rum & Gold With this version done, I'll be going over it again with samples to add the missing Trumpet 2 part, to beef up the low end, and to assist any other sections that could use a virtual boost. But for now, have a listen and see what you make of it! Live recording! Woo! Also, here's a score if you want to read while you listen: Rum & Gold Score Enjoy! :happy:

Hey guys!So...here is a more true rock song as opposed to my alternative ones.This was something really new and fun to do for me, vocal wise.Yes, it is me singing too. For anyone who has heard my other songs that I sing, for I sound considerably different here x)The song has resorted to slightly cliche love type lyrics. Mine of course, need to be a bit deeper :]Basically, the meaning behind the song is a guy who will fall in love with a girl, yet the moment she returns the love, he runs from it. He is afraid of commitment. Anyway, hope you enjoy the song. I enjoyed making it :DLyrics:Boy don’t you understand your game?You made your own special rules, so who’s to blame?You always try to be the best you canThen when they would come to you, you ran-Chorus-You want to work without getting any dirtYou want to feel love without feeling any hurtBut ya can’tYeah boy, you know you can’tYou want to play with fire without getting burnedYou want to have it easy, and so you’ve learnedThat ya can’tOh boy, you know you can’t-End Chorus-You tried to do your bestWhile others would sit and restThen when you thought you would winThe prize went to those who would sinYou tried, you tried, you tried, you triedOh boy, oh lord, you could have died-Chorus-You’re a millionaire in the heartWho won’t give out his promised shareYeah he won’t keep his end of the dealYou won’t jump in that river boy, you won’t work without getting dirt, you won’t hold fire without getting burned You won’t feel love without feeling hurt, you won’t feel love without feeling hurt Millionaire in the Heart

If you want to seriously put in doubt poly-tonality or bi-tonality as a term, you'll need to do a lot better than that. The terms refer to the method of composition, not the end product. Hence, simply using two keys simultaneously in a function-harmony way yet isolated from eachother can lead to all sorts of sound formations. It's however much easier to explain it by noting the use of tonal parameters that operate independent from eachother according to a differing axis. It also generates the problem of now having to find a new term to describe the above process. Unless you have a better suggestion, I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with bitonal or polytonal as descriptions of composition method. Again, the end result isn't important and just as well since otherwise any given term will fall in the same trap. The label tonality is used due to the restrictions applied. In other words, again, it has nothing to do with what it sounds like in the end but it has to do with construction (chords in 3rds, hierarchies within the same axis, etc.) That is, cadences, voice movement, etc can all be observed by all parallel keys independent from eachother. It is using the major/minor tonality system and construction principles and mixing it with itself. The only possible description of such an specific technique is that of referring to multiple keys (in the traditional sense) that move parallel to eachother. It's obviously not going to sound "tonal," and that was never the point. Poly/bitonality doesn't really say anything about specific usage concerning what's important or what isn't, just the building blocks, so whatever your criticisms are they are piece-specific and can't apply to the technique itself as it doesn't dictate how many keys must be parallel to eachother or how they must interact with eachother (or if they must interact what so ever.) I'd like to see the actual musicological arguments against the terms, if you got them handy since if it's got anything to do with what you're saying they're utter nonsense but I want to see for myself.

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

It also depends on the keys. Keys that are close together have a different level of dissonance than keys that are further apart. Think C major + G major vs C minor + B major. You have the choice of making the dissonances more intensive the closer you put the cadences in relation to eachother.

Very clear to me now, thank you!

... or going to a website that has a track record of being skeptical about pseudo-science, which this clearly is. Honestly, Nazis? GTFO.

Short answer: No. Long answer: depends on how you use the pillars, how the context causes one to be more prominent over another or if they're equal, etc.

Writing in bitonality is kind of tough given it doesn't exist and all.

Well, I don't even really believe 'bitonality' exists. At least, in any sense that it would be justified being called under that label. And if even the superimposition of two keys isn't possible, then I don't see how it'd be possible to superimpose anymore than that and do anything that could be justified having the label 'tonality' in it. Given the context in which he is talking, I think it's a fairly safe definition (if somewhat ambiguous in practice) to define tonality as a system of pitch hierarchies whereby the full chromatic is all related functionally to a central tone. It's been my experience that a superimposition of any two keys (even in very simple functional contexts) does not work at all at producing the effect of tonality. One of two things tends to happen: Either one key is allowed to dominate and that is heard as the fundamental tonic ultimate (i.e. the Rite of Spring where even blatant juxtapositions of keys do still yield a prevailing tonal center) or, by the own complexity of the material and saturation of the full chromatic, essentially comes out sounding without any prominent center whatsoever; a lot of Ligeti comes to mind. Not to mention that, in most famous cases of 'polytonality' that I'm aware of, all of the harmonic materials tend to be controlled by an external mode that allows for implications of multiple keys; the octatonic mode being the most popular example which helped to control a lot of Bartok's and Stravinsky's 'bitonality' Plus, because of the complexity of a lot of the harmonic aggregates as a result of the juxtaposition of multiple keys, there tends to be an obligation to keep the contrapuntal layers restricted entirely to the diatonic notes of that key. In effect, I think this really should be called 'polymodality' since I think it gives a more accurate description of the effect and processes involved. I've yet to hear a single, convincingly function 'bitonal' piece of music. And I know the term's relevance whatsoever has been contested by more than a few musicologists.

Hi, I was wondering if anyone knowledgeable on the subject, could answer the following: When composing polytonal music, do both keys have to be established in the same way? I understand the ultimate goal, is the V pillar to the I pillar, however leading up to that point, say one key is established through a iii-vi-ii-V-I progression, would the other key have to progress in the same way, at the same time? In other words: do one of the pillars have to be present, at all time? Thank you