Leaderboard

4'33 from J.Cage, cuz I'm super lazy.

I want to hijack this topic to make a point which I think is pertinent which often goes unsaid. The point is: Be as SPECIFIC as you NEED to be. This goes for -everything- you write, for any instrument in any kind of style. As noted by a previous poster, if you NEED a specific sound then you NEED to be specific about what kind of technique and/or auxiliary means are necessary to get it done. The second point (surprise!) is this: If a musician, for any reason, complains about you being specific, they are being a nuisance and should be kil--disregarded. Yes, that sounds awfully harsh, but the truth is that you probably were being specific for a reason, right? You weren't just saying that you meant the violinist to use a soft toothbrush on the G string for literally no reason, right? If you have the conviction (as you should) that what you're writing is exactly what you want, then you must be prepared to stand and defend your idea. This is what makes us (composers,) kind of a pain but at the same time where much of the admiration comes from. We command power but with that power comes the responsibility to actually stand behind your ideas even if the entire string section hates you for ever and ever. There will be other string sections out there, but there's only one of you.

I think a score is always welcome. At first sight it sound like an improvisation. I don't mind a piece being formless, or almost. What I don't see is the mixture of moods: sometimes it's jazz, sometimes post-romantic. The irregularity in the rhythm makes me think it's going to be less tonal, but is isn't. Although I enjoy it, what I try to say is that it's not clear (for me) a common element in the piece, except that jumping writing. On the other hand, if the intention is to be played electronically, wouldn0t it be better another sound (not classic piano)?

So..... it's not an exact meaning?