Leaderboard

Very lovely.... Perfect the way it is. Each music composition is an entity in itself. There is a boundary between creation, sculpturing of notes, and just relaying a feeling inside you. when I hear this lovely piece. I suspect it was an emotion, that came out out you. And as such is really right there. It truly creates a great yet fragile emotive state. Music serves may purposes. It doesn't always have to make a distinct STATEMENT. It doesn't have to start at one point and distinctly arrive at another. It can just 'amble' around. Like some people do in the life. I don't know how you arrived at this piece. But it has that feel to me, it 'arrived' to you. I like how it doesn't really resolve itself.. it leaves you hanging. excellent

I think it's awesome wanting to help educate. However, I would argue that a composer should already know how to analyze music before putting pen to paper (or fingers on mice and keyboards). That said, I think composition students need to learn more the creative process, how to formulate concrete musical ideas, how musical development works, and how to adapt/devise/create structures out of those ideas. This essay doesn't really seem to be of much use despite flowery prose ridden with grammatical errors. Just my two cents.

That's precisely where it fails tho. If, within the context of describing something, you're using words that are not related to the thing at hand (e.g music has nothing to do with clothing or anything textile), then it's unclear what you mean with them at all. Saying the "texture" and "fabric" of music is meaningless unless you specifically describe what you mean with those words and why you chose exactly those words. Additionally, they are very similarly related enough that without context they might as well be synonyms (my entire point.) The shirt example is what you SHOULD have done with your description in the first place so that the words become meaningful. If there is a reasonable chance that I may misinterpret your position because of the way you're describing something, then your description is lacking and you should rewrite/reformulate it, that's all I'm really saying. Not really. Analysis can be a large number of things and done in a large number of ways within a large number of different system and frameworks. That is to say, analysis depends entirely on the objective of the analysis. Like when you analyze anything, you can't analyze "everything," you usually focus on interest points and those depend on the person doing the analysis. In other words, the degree by which something is complicated or simplified within an analytical framework is entirely dependent what information needs to be extracted. For instance. If I'm analyzing Ligeti's Artikulation, I'd be pretty ill equipped if I used a framework based on functional harmony to analyze the disposition of vertical sounds in his music. Instead, I may be better served by forgoing any existing system and crafting something out that works better with the material at hand. Or let's say I'm analyzing large form structures in a Strauss opera. I'm not going to sit there and map out every single harmonic change and counterpoint nuance, because my objective is not that. Instead I'd be much better served by synthesizing what is important to my objective into elements I can directly observe (for example, observing only the cadences for type/direction/modulation.) It will still be "complex," but it will have significantly less pointless information than if I went through every little detail that is not relevant to my objective. So, I kind of see what you're trying to do, but it falls into a lot of mistakes that I've seen very often, specially when it comes to terminology and methodology. Sure, you can split things into elements if you want, but it's only meaningful if there's an actual objective behind that. This objective also will inform how exactly each element would need to be broken down and presented, so as to not overload the analysis with pointless information. Being able to recognize and focus on specific elements is a much more important ability than simply making a general "break down" of what you think music is composed of, specially when the divisions are very arbitrary. That's why the basic breakdown is usually just pitch/rhythm/dynamic because those elements are concrete and actual physical phenomenon disconnected from any specific use-case, with everything else coming down to individual objective and needs. But yeah, maybe it's a language thing, but that's no excuse at this point, right?

I like the ambient and the sound, is it muted strings what you used? But I miss a climax with a suspension on the high register near the end to round the piece.

In the first 15 seconds I can't stop hearing "oh fortuna by carl orff", is just like the main motive but incomplete. Feels like ambient music, some that would be in the background of a emotive scene.