Leaderboard

Well said. Indeed we should just write the music that we want to! Composing began as a little pursuit for me, but now that I take it much more seriously I'm thinking always more about these things. This is a great discussion point you have here!

@Theodore Servin and @aMusicComposer countless thanks to both of you, I was afraid the piece could result too tricky as my older ones did in the past (for the sake of being contrapuntically horrendous), but anyway, done it's done and I'm so satisfied to read your comments! Edit: P.S.: the other fugue (F-sharp minor 3) exists as well. Thanks a lot!

I write mostly schlock; sometimes garbage. I'm not well-trained enough to give this any serious thought, and I don't think it would matter if I did. I would say, though, that the Late Romantic and Impressionist composers have the most influence on me, and that's the kind of music I try to emulate. It's not current, but that's what I like, so it's all good!

I think the best word to describe my music is "neo-romantic." I write music that I feel is easy and pleasing to listen to - not necessarily 'light music' but not avant-garde. My style is not so similar to Romantic composers as to be reminiscent of any one, rather in a review I received here I was told that: "One minute I'm hearing Mendelssohn's influence, the next a little Tchaikovsky." I believe it was @J. Lee Graham who said that, a composer who is obviously also a traditional tonalist. My biggest works are largely Romantic. There are some minor 20th century inflections that I add, such as an unusual modulation or chord choice. I also like to utilise new instruments such as the Contraforte, or ones which slipped into obscurity during the Romantic period such as the alto trombone. NB: The alto trombone is a wonderful addition to the orchestral brass section. Listen to many orchestral pieces from the Classical era, including Beethoven's symphonies to hear it in action. In chamber works however, there is a larger scope of influence, especially from the music of Scotland, where I live. Classical pieces that I have written include sections with common Scottish musical ideas, and a string sextet that I am writing has the finale as a harmonised Strathspey dance. In the age of the internet and globalisation, we have a huge range of musical influences from throughout the world. Ethnomusicology is a growing area of study, and we composers have the freedom to write whatever we want, whether from orchestras with oboes and strings, or for ensembles with sitar, gamelan and electronics. What we should never forget is the universal language of music. Atonality has become common and respected, and this poses the risk of us tonalists being forgotten or actively disregarded. The worst thing that I could hear is not an experimentalist piece by Stockhausen. It's not a calculated serialist sonata. It's just four words: "Find your own voice." Who has the right to dictate anyone's compositional style?

I'll start with eclectic. I'm the chef who wants to try every dish on the planet, and some that aren't. Life is short and I'm not an intellectual when you get right down to it. I go by instinct and my own sense of aesthetics. I am very confident in this. I believe that whatever the musical expression - this is wide open - it should aspire to be beautiful. We don't have to define beauty here, do we? I don't like the vulgar, the cheap or the political. There is a deceptive aspect to the undercurrents of modernism and what have you. You could almost say that there is a certain politics to it. It might be helpful to say that I was raised on Pop music, so I tend to write shorter pieces. I admire those that think in the classical symphonic forms, that are at home with writing long pieces, or a modern long piece as well. But I am making progress to address this. And I'm at the point now with tonality that I think I can make compelling tonal works. Also, lately I've been focusing on melody and emotion. And this necessarily means a familiar harmonic language. But should I want to convey an emotion that can't be achieved this way I will adopt a different method without hesitation, or just plain do it, as I have many modernist piece here already. I approach the act of composing by recognizing things I'm playing in my head subconsciously. I attach a mood to it. Somber, slow, happy, fast, something with a pulse or in your face. Whatever. Broad strokes. Anything to get past the blank empty page phase. Then I try things out on piano. I have to hear it on piano and not just in my head. I guess I'm deficient that way. I would say that some of most enjoyable moments in composing come when I finally know how something will end. Everything is so much easier then.

I consider my own music to be a mix of Classical and Romantic values. Let me explain that further. My phrase structure often is in typical forms for the Classical Era, sentences and periods. But, I don't simply stick to chords common for the Classical Era. Sometimes I use an augmented triad, which I have heard some people call "the +5 chord" or "the yearning chord". Sometimes, if I want to achieve an ambient atmosphere, I use minor seventh chords, the most peaceful sounding seventh chords in closed position. Sometimes, I even use a root position Neopolitan or a second inversion Neopolitan. I most commonly use these as part of a circle of fifths sequence and with the root position Neopolitan, I resolve it down to the tonic, usually minor, as though it is part of a subtonic seventh chord if you know what I mean(so Db major moving down to C minor tonic for example as though the Db major is really just part of a Bbm7). I tend to concentrate on the melody and then fit the harmony into it. Though there are some pieces where I go the other way, starting with the harmony and then deriving a melody from it. If you look at my earlier works and then my later works, you can see that my earlier works tend to be harmonically simple, with most of the motion coming from a single melodic line. Whereas in my later works, you see a lot more motives and counterpoint and instrumental dialogue in general. And while there are some pieces where I'm like "I'm going to write this in the form of a Rondo" or whatever, a lot more of my works have become tone painting works. Even my second attempt at a symphony is itself a tone painting. The form on the small scale is like Mozart. The form on the large scale is like Chopin or Debussy, just flowing from 1 section to another. The harmony is a lot like Beethoven, especially in my minor key pieces and even more especially in C minor. The way that the melody is built is also a lot like Beethoven in quite a few works of mine, simple building blocks forming a complex melody as the motive gets twisted and expanded and contracted and as the rhythmic and melodic parts of the motive divorce and come back together. When it isn't like Beethoven, the melody is more like Chopin, virtuosic and ever so flowing. But even Chopin doesn't avoid melodic motives alltogether. An example of a more motivic Chopin piece is his C minor Prelude. Even though one could argue "There is no bit of melody, it is just chords" there actually is a melodic and rhythmic motive hidden within those chords. So I guess you could say that my music is neo-romantic because it tends towards Beethoven and the early romantic composers, especially Chopin in terms of harmony, melody, etc. with a bit of neo-baroque thrown in, as my counterpoint tends to be like Bach's, individual melodies simple, entire result complex and even virtuosic.

Im assuming this is based on Handels Passacaglia in g minor considering it borrows ALOT of ideas from it. I think it does well in this context, however I would consider slightly changing parts such as m.46 in which it uses the exact same pattern as seen toward the end of Handels Passacaglia. It's always okay to borrow ideas, I just think it might be good to change it slightly so you don't end up recreating a piece, knowingly or unknowingly. Otherwise sounds good!