Leaderboard

Quick note: fff is a dynamic. sfz is an accent. Keep that in mind when deciding to place one or the other, they are not the same thing and aren't interchangeable. The blurb is so cutesie. ;D It makes me want to convenience a little. :lol: Sounds very clean and flowing, and the program and music match perfectly. On the flip side, just as a personal thing, I think it's a bit too cutsie for how smart the music itself is. Kind of like it was completely written for an audience like us (composers some of who are wound up tight, others who like something 'out of the box' now and then, etc), and no one else. I don't know how much a non-composer would like this, other than it "sounds happy and cute." The intricacies would most likely be lost in translation at that point. Thanks for sharing!

Nice! Some observations: I suggest you reemplace that fff with a sfz (it makes more sense) Great work. F mayor is one of my favorite keys.

So...you got a really enjoyable song here. Then...you got the idea of bunny rabbits sleeping over and bouncing all around with super happy faces as they fly up in the sky to the song, and honestly...you end up laughing your butt off. Then at 1:50 I imagine a poor bunny who is missing out on the fun due to his injured leg as he sits there...staring at the other bunnies who hop in joy. At 2:20 I imagine another bunny coming and helping him join the bunnies. You made me go from laughing my butt off, to feeling incredibly sad, to unbelievably touched, and all this is from imagining a song with bunnies who have a sleepover. I don't have any words to describe what that feels like. Now...the theme itself is actually really addicting. I enjoyed this song immensely...congrats. You made my love a song about rabbits xD Great job!

Something you seem to do a lot that I considerably enjoy is very present in this piece. I notice, you enjoy switching from major to minor x) Many good things going on in this. You have a great sense of variety with the themes. As well as playing style, and it keeps the song interesting and enjoyable to listen to. Now, back to the major and minor ideas. GREAT way to express the title of the song. You got the feeling of love in one hand, yet the feeling of the rejection in another. I also heavily enjoy the main theme established at the beginning of the song and how you weave it in throughout the piece. Honestly, I couldn't think of anything really to be improved on. Great piece Zach, definitely something to be proud of

I appreciate that you posted a score with your audio here -- many newcomers do not do so, and it makes it much easier to be able to review a piece when it has a score. So thank you very much for that, you're to be commended :happy: I think you have some really nice themes going on here, and some really great ideas -- I especially like the chord on the second beat at measure 8, and then the lead-in to the poly-rhythms, which were really catchy. (It also certainly seems to fit the mood of the name you've given your piece -- and it is a strange name indeed :lol:) I think some ways you could improve the piece is to make your "voicing" more clear. For example -- at measures 3 & 4, why not make the low E in measure 3, on the second beat, a second voice pointing down, and connect it to the bottom phrase on the right hand in measure 4? That way, you make the cohesion of your melodies clearer to the performer, and in fact you can even program the midi to bow to your will in this way -- you can choose to only highlight the top notes on your right hand, or fade out the top notes and focus on your lower voice going on in your right hand. Whatever you want! :) Just attach your slurs accordingly. Also, I appreciate your attempt to contrast your piece at measures 21-28 -- it's easy to just copy-paste your phrases, or repeat your idea or mood over and over again, etc., and you definitely didn't do that here :nod: I'm not really sure if this Lento-like section was really the best way to do this, but I think it's a better alternative than just continuing with your A theme. And in the long run, getting more comfortable with development will allow you to grow far more musically than choosing not to develop your ideas. So you're definitely on the right track. I hope I'm not coming across as harsh, because that's actually not the impression I'm trying to give -- I'm actually pretty impressed with this, on the whole. I just think the musical ideas can use some refining. Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed this quite a bit :phones:

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.

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.