Leaderboard

Screw off.

Arianna makes a really good point. Other than that, make composing the habit instead of procrastination. Set a goal to write something new every day. It doesn't matter if it's just a tiny portion of a piece, a short melody, a chord progression, whatever; just write something. Write even if you don't know what to write. Write especially if you don't know what to write. If it sounds like crap, whatever, just write it. If guided exercises help you, go for it. At this point, your main concern should be producing as much work as possible, not with producing your first masterpiece. Write, write, write.

Music and philosophy is very important. All musical styles have a philosophy, both practical and "spiritual". Practical philosophy: Is the musical language, how you use, harmony/progression, form, counterpoint, dissonances/consonance, rhythm, use of strong beats, , etc, all the practical tools of composition. stylus fantasticus for example, is another philosophy of composition; Athanasius Kircher described it this way : The fantastic style is especially suited to instruments. It is the most free and unrestrained method of composing, it is bound to nothing, neither to any words nor to a melodic subject, it was instituted to display genius and to teach the hidden design of harmony and the ingenious composition of harmonic phrases and fugues. Affects (Baroque) The tools to "paint pictures" with music, the different affects describes different thing, like chromatic passages, dotted rhythms, time signature, key signature, melodic movement, dialogues between voices. "Spiritual" philosophy: Was is the aim of music, and was is the music purpose. Its music about self-realization, God , describe nature, to bring forward the national feelings (like the use of folk tunes etc, Grieg and Chopin is very good examples for that kind of philosophy) And there is philosophy in performance: Should we use much vibrato, less vibrato, long phrasing (like linear thinking), short phrasings, articulation, legato, staccato, rubato. Every trademark of styles is philosophy, there are some styles that have more and some have less. All the subculture of "shall do, or shall not do" is philosophy, If you read Persichettis book on modern harmony, you can see how modern music has its own philosophy on dissonance and consonance. What is accepted in music is an philosophy too, many say if you write in an older style, they refer to its as pastiche, and say that the music does not represent our time, which is nothing more then a philosophy. Some say yes, and some say that methods of composition is not limited by time, nor by what era we are in (as a matter of fact, time is always moving, and when we are in the present, an era has not been made yet), another philosophy have your own mind and can choose what ever language and practical methods you want to use, because we are at the climax of musical evolution. I think every composer should be aware of the this, if a composer is not aware of hes: Practical Philosophy "Spiritual" Philosophy Performance Philosophy I think the music and its integrity is at stake, how can one write music with so little thought? Music is so much more then just notes and sound, but what all philosophies, old and present agree on is that music have to express something. But the differ in the tools, harmony, melodic construction, counterpoint, views on tonality, views on dissonance, views on what the it shall express/describe. But the goal of music an a wide sense is the same. Sadly there seem to be many that dont think of this, i read posts where people state that music and philosophy has nothing to do with each other. " i do it because i like it, or what im told to do", seems like art has become mindless. "Robo-art :(

Seems like people are finding these useful so here's another. Write a balanced second half (need not be the same length), appropriate to a variation theme, that returns to the tonic, sticking close to the style of the given excerpt. (audio given below) Piece for string trio.mp3

I have checked SimenN's profile again and I understand his point of view. He composes in 17th and early 18th baroque style pastiche - not in neobaroque style for example. So his mind as a musician is 300+ years old. Therefore nobody from us can expect him to think differently. This type of composing might still serve as an influence but only in form and content, not in instrumental, melodic and harmonic language. Imagine he'd never want to use car or airplane for long range travelling - even if this vehicles are against the nature, I suppose.

More often than not, these kinds of associations are tiring for me (and tend to reveal how dull people are), not that there is anything wrong with the music of Debussy creating images of fauns and the body of music written in the last 100 years homogenously sounding like "people getting murdered". I think people desperately try to find something that music reminds them of, as if every piece of music written needs to be something else in addition to music. For me, I interpret kinds of energies from music. These energies can't really be properly explained: it's a visceral feeling.

Totally agree about avoiding Romantic cullbrap when naming; words like 'fate', 'destiny', 'tragic' and the like sound like some lame straight-to-DVD anime series. I hate overtly descriptive titles. If you can describe something adiquately in words, what's the point of writing music about it? Ironic, ambigous or pun titles appeal to me, as do lines of poetry (particularly if you can use ...three dots... which makes it impossible for anyone saying the title to do so correctly), and phrases in German and Scandinavian languages (Italian and French sound to close to the prissy Romanticism slated above). Dig the postmodernism, people. In fact I often don't even name a piece until the dots are finished.

I am not against the idea of meaning. I have nothing against Romantism. If it matters (not really ;) ), I even prefer it over classicism and baroque. I have something against the idea that a title is necessary for the experience of the piece. As if the piece otherwise had nothing to say. Music has something to say. My whole point is that, it is for the listener to decide. Surely the composer can have certain intentions, but in the end meaning is in the eye/ear of the beholder. That is why I think it is rather useless to guide that listeners experience, that is what I call stupid. The old-fashioned idea that the composer can capture his emotional experience and convey that, as if there us a universal way of how those notes are interpreted... It is the worst, when the so called 'story' contains certain details that are extra-musical. Take for example the title 'a storming evening'. How does an evening sound different from midday? how does storm sound different than thunder? Has a lament for a tsunami another sound than a lament for an earthquake or a flood or whatever... I am fine with composers adding contextual data like when and where a piece is written. Interesting for historicans and the likes. I prefer the simple designations, formal names, or just numbers.

I've always wondered what's so 'stupid' about writing meaningful music. On the contrary, if all what flows from our minds is a collection of meaningless sounds arbitrarily put together (and quite often under pretentious, esotherical titles), we should be sorry. Anyway, in my view naming a piece doesn't convey any ideal, Romantic or whatsoever (heh, we all know Renacentists, Baroquists and Modernists did never, ever name a piece :P ). It's just a way to identify a particular piece from any other, just like a child is named to tell him/her from any other human being. When I name a piece, I tend to be quite generic (i.e. Piano Sonata N° 3, String Serenade, Symphony N° 1) - but even then a piece might be trying to convey a message, story or idea of its own, and quite often I'm not afraid of openly stating it (i.e. Adriana Suite, Emma Overture, Northanger Sonata). I don't think that doing either is by any means a symptom of stupidity.