Leaderboard

You said a lot of stuff here, but I'm going to mainly focus on this in my post. Despite the tortured wishes of people like Jacob Collier, this isn't a thing. If you take a piece of music that was in C minor, for piano, and then perform it up one whole step, it doesn't suddenly sound "more or less X". Especially if the audience is not intimately familiar with the piece. Specifically because the "X" is entirely subjective and the description only makes sense within your own mind. Key changes within a piece only seem to create some sort of emotional effect because they contrast what came before it. This effect is often more pronounced because this often accompanies a change in the rhythm, or other established norms in the piece up until then. "Key" by definition, is entirely relative because intervals are relative. There are plenty of good reasons to transpose an existing work when you're adapting it for a different ensemble apart from that which it was originally written. Ranges, ease of playing, and timbrel differences. For example, if the original key of X melody line was in a key that would be most suited to the lower range of the oboe, then you should probably transpose it up because it's probably going to sound terrible in the low register. Tin whistles? You're going to want to stay in either E minor or D major on most whistles not just so you don't have to half-hole, but because the upper range is tough on the ears after not-too-long and requires more airflow. Generally speaking, if you can shift around the key, and run into no timbrel, play-ability or range issues, then it doesn't actually matter if you've transposed it or not. Because this whole "X key sounds more X than Y key" is nonsense.

Young Composers Fall 2019 Competition: "Poor Form" Welcome to "Poor Form", a competition dedicated to stimulating creativity by way of thematic transformation. Liszt was a huge fan of using this concept; an opening thought would be copied, but used in wildly new ways to preserve unity despite deviating from it! The Renaissance similarly used the "headmotto mass", where each portion of the Ordinary Mass would begin with the same material, before breaking off into different forms of counterpoint. This season, we're going to celebrate originality in the most literal way possible: it's what you do with it that matters. You're going to see a lot of rules, but that's only because this concept is pretty different; we're trying to make it as creatively free as possible! Topic: Compose a small suite of 4-6 short pieces, each beginning with the same music, then deviating away from it seamlessly into new styles, developments, and orchestrations. Composition Rules... ...regarding the shared material: The shared material between all movement must be at least 5% of your movement in terms of performance time. For example, a movement of 2 minutes, must have at least 6 seconds of shared material. Shared material need not be at the same tempo between movements. Shared material must be identical in most ways; it is up to composer discretion what this means, but a hard rule is that not only the melody/theme can be used each movement. The closer the shared material is to being identical between movements, the better. Entries for solo monophonic instrument (i.e. not harp, piano, organ) are extra-encouraged to have shared material be identical. Shared material must be found at the beginning of each movement, and should not reprise mid-movement, with exception of perhaps the final movement. Shared material and new material must sound different, while still sounding appropriate. New material must feel like a natural progression from shared material. The intent is to show composer inventiveness and skill in developing themes and ideas. ...regarding the movement form: Suites must have a final movement in some way combining the branching processes of the other movements. This movement is included in your movement count. The final movement should not be a restatement of the other movements/processes linearly, but a blend of some sort. However, not all processes need to be blended all at once. Basically, make it a mashup of some sort. Movements, bar the final one, may not exceed 5 minutes in performance time length. Movements must be at least 1 minute long. Shared and new material in movements should transition seamlessly between each other. Eligibility: *You must be a member of the Young Composers forum in order to enter. Sign ups will be in the comments below. *There will again be no limits regarding instrumentation. *You must have a minimum of 4 movements in your piece, including the final blend variation. *You must have some sort of audio rendition accompanying your work. *You must present a score of your music for judging regarding proper handling of musical convention. *If you volunteer to be a judge, you may not enter as a contest participant. *Note: A written component is not required for this competition. The music should speak for itself this time. Scoring: Clear and inventive deviation from the shared material between movements, all with an obviously repeated introduction. /20 A conclusive and satisfying, yet creatively combined final movement. /10 A good, semi-professional score and audio rendition of the work. /10 Sound and realistic instrumentation and orchestration. /10 TOTAL: /50 Deadlines: Deadline for entrant intent: October 31st Deadline for entrant's submissions: November 15th Deadline for judge responses: December 1st Competition results: by December 8th. Entry Notes: Please list your interest to compete by replying to this thread below in the comments. Please note if you are applying as a PARTICIPANT or a JUDGE. I will be updating this list for participants as we go. However, entry into the competition is a commitment. While we would love to have as many interested participants as possible, not entering is better than committing, then dropping. This competition is a little more laid back to encourage more entries! A separate topic for submissions will be available at the end of the entrant application period. Note: Judges must be able to provide ample feedback on all 4 categories of scoring as well as provide a numerical score in each. Minimum 1-2 paragraphs per criteria. Participants: isuckatcomposing Noah Brode Tónkskáld KJthesleepdeprived Gustav Johnson bkho HoYin Cheung J.Santos luderart Judges: Monarcheon Luis Hernández

You should research the concept of "dissonant counterpoint". You'll need basic knowledge of tonal counterpoint to understand some of it, but it's a type of counterpoint that consonant notes end up sounding dissonant because of the flipping of rules. "Dissonance" is not an audioacoustic term. It's a very relative term that varies from person to person (or culture to culture, though I personally dislike talking about music in terms of overarching cultures). What one person find extremely dissonant may be very consonant for another.

That seems to be a somewhat long-winded way of doing it, but it works, I guess. It doesn't specifically tackle how to deal with the minor third, but it does get you the correct intervals. But that's only how to calculate it; it doesn't really explain anything in and of itself.

This isn't really music anymore. It's just math that you'd learn in school. The minor third ratio is from E to G, or the second and third places in the ratio. That's 10:12. 10:12 dividing both sides by 2 gets you 5:6 which is the proper ratio for the minor third.

I think @AngelCityOutlaw and @Jean Szulc make good points. I can't speak for every composer, but I'd wager the vast majority of compositions are in the specific key they're in because that's simply how the composer "heard" it in his/her head. However, I would agree that changing the key is compromising the composer's original "intent" of the piece. Whether that's good or bad I suppose is up to each person to decide. I don't exactly know what you mean by this. Almost everyone would stay in the original key unless the instruments being arranged for can't play certain notes in the original. At that point, I would think physical limitations would take precedence over personal preference. Or I would question whether the instruments being arranged for are a good choice to begin with. Yes, and by that same token, it could make things easier (which is why many beginner piano books contain easy transpositions of songs in more "difficult" keys). Key signatures are arbitrary things, anyway. If everyone learned F# major when they first started learning to read music, then C major would be the difficult key. And besides, harder ≠ impossible. That's why there are such things as rehearsals. From previous interactions on this forum, I know this is important to you. @AngelCityOutlaw has already tackled this one, though. There is no "periodic table of keys" that links an emotional state to each Western key signature. That would reduce music down to a science, where all a composer would have to do is string together a bunch of keys to give the emotion s/he wants. In reality, it's much more nuanced than that... because, as mentioned previously, it's all about the relative intervals of the music. Ultimately, it's your decision whether to transpose or not. I don't think your arguments are very sound as to why you shouldn't transpose, but I think they're moot, anyway. If you don't want to transpose, then you don't have to. No explanation needed.

That's how ratios work. They divide and reduce like fractions do. It's just basic math. 8:12 divide both sides by 4, you get 2:3, perfect fifth. 10:15 divide both sides by 5 you get 2:3, perfect fifth. The fact that they're off by a factor of 4 or 5 doesn't mean anything as far as the ratios are concerned. It's just a bigger form of 2:3. They need to be that big so that the other intervals also work with it.

They are represented. They're just multiplied by a certain factor to preserve the relationship between the two. 2:3, the perfect fifth is equal to 8:12 and 10:15. No. They're all individual and considered together at the same time.

Nice little thing here, that flows into itself rather well, despite being sectioned by standard form. The stops didn't get to me so much as Eb9 with a focus on the 9th did. I know it's part of your main progression but it always felt a little odd to me for some reason; perhaps it's the predominant function being accented as though it had dominant function, but I'm not sure.