Leaderboard

People are generally more rude online because they can hide behind their computer and, like I said, be that "internet tough-guy" In the real world you'd look like a jackass and a tool.

For someone who disregards the opinion of others you ask a lot of questions. Or am I missing someting?

Frankly, my answer is that it depends very much on the tone and content of this criticism. Because that is a very eloquent way to discern the true intention of whoever is making the critique. There's a difference between being rigorous, even blunt, and being plainly rude and insulting. Criticism aimed to point out my flaws (and why not, strenghts) and help me to improve as a composer is welcome. Sometimes I'll agree with it and attempt to correct these flaws (or to build on these strenghts), and otherwise I might disagree (most likely on aesthetic matters). But I'll certainly learn from that. On the other hand, criticism aimed only to discredit or to act out envy and jealousy must promptly be dismissed. I don't think Tchaikovsky found anything to build on from Hanslick's verbal abuse on his Violin Concerto, or that Rachmaninov thought that Cui was actually helping him when dubbing his First Symphony "a program symphony commissioned by Satan on the Ten Plagues of Egypt". Listen to the critics - but keep in mind what Sibelius said: "I have yet to see a statue of a critique".

The above suggestions are great.... however, don't be forced into elaborating on the harmonic content just for the sake of 'spice'. There's much that can be done with a single chord or scale - most of my own music has very little or no harmonic motion or progression. Strong rhythmic/melodic/textural content can help alleviate any discomfort caused by a static harmony.

I havent' heard of it. I think you can get help closer at home: Justin Tokke was working on an (free) online course. And Daniel (SYS) orchetsrates a lot too, and maybe I can contribute as well. There are many here that could give constructive feedback. So, bring it on! :D

You used common practice harmony, and than the most easy version of it. Mainly tonic, subdominant and dominant chords. You transpose to the parallel key, again the most obvious choice. My advise is to learn from musical history. Start analyzing more music from say the romantic era. See how composers move to farther tonal regions. (Brahms or Tschaikofsky, Mahler or whatever you fancy) Then study harmonies that add or alter then tonal framwork. See for example how Debussy uses added notes. Or listen to some Russians. Mousorgsky, RimskyKorsakov, or Scriabin. they add all kinds of octatonic scale, or other composer ones, like Shostakovich, Prokofiev. You could continue to discover quartal harmony (that is not based on triads as in the common practice era, but on 4ths) Look for bitonality (Honneger amongst others). See what nice sonorities you can create with serial music. Start for example with early Schoenberg, or take the violin concerto by Alban Berg, which I really love. It is a great and accessable introduction in serial music. I hope this helps

To answer your question (which might better be answered by you giving your own opinion), I believe criticism is necessary. Nobody is the best. There are a lot of people who are bad. A ton of people who are good. A fewer number of people who are great, but none of them is the best. Trust me. So, in that regard: take ANYTHING you can to become better. If you disagree, ask yourself WHY you disagree with an opinion. Is it aesthetic? Or are you really just trying to cover up your own ignorance? I've done that before. What I always do when receiving criticism from somebody I am not sure I trust is to ask them for an example. For them to show me what they mean on staff paper or in a recording. If they are offering suggestions, they should be able to offer an example. Then you can go see for yourself if the method they are suggesting is better.

Well, i don't know of such formula though i strive to aquire it, but i once created two sets of fugues which really are preludes called the hyperplex fugues & the deoplex fugues & they were constructed by pure mathematics with minimal non-mathematical intervention. All this talk has made me realize that perhaps the best answer is non other than "proportion" or consistency. That any musical non-sense with musical errors can be considered music as long as it has "proportion of the parts". Take this quote of mine & really think about it: "If it is music, only proportion is inescapable."

Maybe one should ask oneself how your view of talent affects yourself? How will your view benefit yourself? If you decide that (this somewhat diffuse concept of) talent exists and is a factor you better decide that you are madly talented, gods gift to whatever you do. No need to check with reality. If you think you lack in talent still you will probably continue doing what you like to do, as in this case write music. But that attitude might eventually make you perform worse and worse, or at least make things go slow, and thus prove to yourself that you lack talent. Of course there are differences in how easily we grasp things, but my opinion is that very many can become great at what they decide to do, and for a few it will be difficult. By great I mean create great things, not become an icon remembered for hundreds of years. Once a field is chosen time is important. If you start at the age of three you will have a lot of experience when it is time to become professional. Then you need to surround yourself with the right environment so you get inspired and so you eventually give chance a possibility to make you very successful. Since the phenomena music a cultural product and not something genetical, all science proves that, there can not be something as "genetic talent tagged for music". If I would give "talent that matters" a definition it would be ability to relax and believe in yourself and the ability to dedicate yourself to a task. If you can do this, you can perform great in your chosen area, save if you happen to have real difficulties for this area. :)

if you know what you're aiming for, you'll be fine with any formula that allows you to reach your goal. Webern used math formulas, Cage used randomness, Tchaikovsky used spontaneity, Bach used strict frameworks, Mahler used everything he could - and all of them made the artistic statements they wanted to do. On the other hand, when you don't know where are you going, whatever road will take you.

You can be as good as you want, but if no one knows about it then what good is it at all? Its not though is it. I could be the worlds best film composer but unless a director/ producer knows this then they aren't going to hire me. If I know a bunch of talented musicians who are capable of performing my pieces to a high standard then its going to look better on me. Knowledge in composition is obviously very important if you want to be successful but, as I said before, its no good if no one knows about it. The 'who' denotes a person, potentially someone who will hire you. They could have nothing to do with music composition (which is the 'what' in this instance, so they aren't really that conjoined), they could be an advertisement manager, a film producer, a pub landlord. Someone who doesn't have a clue at all about composition and whether your music is 'correct' or not.

Its not what you know; Its who you know.

Uh, kay. Its more about just not being a wuss and standing up for your music. People will attack your music, regardless of quality. Get used to it. I could have easily offered constructive criticism, but seeing the abysmal quality of the start and you calling it "good", I knew it would be a waste of my time. Usually I'm the one to promote good-hearted discussion, but there's a line, and you crossed it.