Leaderboard

Why don't you stop presuming that other people don't do research? Are you the only one educated here? Well, I can't remind myself that Bach held a professor title. Yes, he was a master pedagogue, but above all he was a genius artist. And no, he wasn't a professor. Yes, the helped each other, because they knew how to do that, not because they had a degree or held a professor title. They weren't educated executors of rules. They were artists. Again: Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Haendel and Vivaldi didn't have a degree in composition. In anything actually. This discussion is now off-topic Yes, and I have a submarine in my room. Do you have a scientific research for that claim? Why don't we know those people? If now there are millions of such people, so there had to be thousands of such people in times of Mozart. Why do we know only Mozart and Haydn and not them? As I said before, technical ability isn't enough to create good art. I think old composers deserve more respect from you. If you think that your technical skills are as good as Mozart's, then think about it: you've learnt it, they created it. Your attitude towards old masters is like attitude of a geologist towards a rock.

@SSC I strongly recommend you to be more humble. Also I wouldn't rely so much on science. And music is not academia, it's an Art. Also you seem to think that education, and musicology makes us nowadays better, more wise and knoledgeable than old masters. Remember: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Haendel and many many others, they were not professors. No, they can't, and computers will not be able to write fugues like Bach. Ability to obey the rules of counterpoint isn't all, it doesn't mean that the work has any artistic value, not to say value equal to Bach. You have to be very arrogant to think you are able to compose like. Discussion with you is like discussion with a person of enlightement era; they thought that one who doesn't have formal education has nothing to say. That's not the point, wether it was Bach who wrote those pieces, These pieces exist, so they must be written by someone in the past.

@sshn I see what you’re talking about. In the “Sicut locutus est” example you cite, Bach has chosen to force a kind of tonal answer (where a degree of the scale is altered) because it works well for what he was trying to do, I believe. As I understand it, tonal answers are only mandatory (if that’s even the right word to use) when the fifth degree of the scale is present near the beginning of a subject; for example, if the subject (in C major) is C G E C, then the answer would be G C B G, rather than G D B G. Does that make sense? Otherwise, I believe tonal answers are discretionary. Tonal answers and the rules governing them are the source of a lot of confusion. In the Fugue Crash Course I wrote and posted here many years ago (on the unlikely but very familiar subject Ah! vous dirai-je, maman, or “Twinkle, twinkle Little Star”), ideally, I should have done a tonal answer since there is blatantly a fifth degree of the scale near the beginning of the subject; but my purpose was to illustrate the basics of fugue writing, so I left the subject alone so as not to cause a lot of confusion. I may rewrite the exposition with a tonal answer someday though, just to be correct. In the case of your subject, I don’t immediately see that you have any choice but to write a codetta to modulate back to the tonic in the answer. I’m almost certain you don’t have to write a tonal answer, and It seems to me that a forced tonal answer would adversely affect the integrity of the subject in this case. Just my opinion, but that’s how it looks to me. Let me know if you have any questions, and by all means, if anybody else has a different understanding on the practice of tonal answers, let it be known!

You still use repeat signs, but either add text above the affected passage that says, "4X," or "repeat until directed," or something like that, or you can use a first ending bracket at the repeat sign, but instead of being marked, "1." to indicate 1st ending, it will be marked, "1., 2., 3., 4.," to indicate 4 repeats before moving on to the next section. You can also indicate different treatments for each of the repeats in text above the affected passage. For example: 1. p, 2. ff, 3. mf.... Hope that makes sense without pictures.

The way I've usually seen it in scores and parts is a repeat sign with 3X above it for 3 repetitions, 4X for 4 repetitions, etc. I'm not familiar with Reich's scores so I can't tell you how he does it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were all written out.

Wouldn't even call this my style but I still thoroughly enjoyed it, to my surprise.

Hi Muhammadreza - The real meat of the piece is the guitar ambient field. To me the cymbals are too steady.. Perhaps some cymbal rolls/builds up, or exotic percussion sounds would lend itself better. I really LOVE the guitar sound. and the you have something going on with the tuning, there very interesting