Leaderboard

I don't know why more people don't want to do competitions, you're GUARANTEED peer review and a bigger platform to share your music. I'm open to any ideas, I'm thinking solo piano or something similar and simple. Let me know if you're interested and in about a week we'll see who wants to participate and what theme we should use etc. etc. If there are obvious skill differences then we could break it up into groups, but come on people let's get a good group together and see what we all come up with.

The role of composers is supposed to be, as all the arts were before modernism, to create beauty and cultural affirmation. Today, the main thing composers are seeking to do is be a part of corporate machines and like modern artists — churn out mass-produced junk, that doubles as anti-European propaganda pieces. Unfortunately. Now it's all abstract expressionism and conceptualist nonsense. You just lay on a drone or throw some paint at a canvas, and then try to tell everyone what it "means" with some florid artspeak — it's not even music or a painting (John Cage 4 '33 anyone?) at all, it's just literature meant to dazzle and confuse until the viewer believes that their instinctual disgust is "wrong" and that they just "don't get it". The fact that this is a question shows you how far it has fallen — as in the past, the social purpose of art, music, architecture, dance, etc. was obvious. But we live in an age of the meaningless, the inane, and the ugly. One might turn to the fact that those in the hard sciences no longer see the value of art and the history of how this came to be, for answers. In the past, most men of science we also skilled artists. It was understood that just like knowledge of the sciences, skill in art and music were real things that could be taught. Christopher Wren made important contributions to meterology, astronomy and as an anatomist — yet he is most known as the architect of St. Paul's Cathedral. Though he had many other impressive works of art. In Wren's time, being a skilled architect, architects were expected to have mastery of sculpture as well. Today, they are taught that such sculptures are monuments of an evil, colonial and "oppressive" civilization that must never exist again, and instead, they are taught to build hideous glass towers and gray, Soviet Apartment blocs. Such men either do not exist today, or are extremely rare and left to passion projects. Modern scientists — with science seeking to deal in logic and objectivity — look at art today as something meaningless, largely because that's what it is; void of logic and now devoid of objective standards, opting instead to wallow in "subjective" solipsism where "anything is art" (and therefore nothing is) and so scientists now see little value in it. It depends on how one is defining "new". In the past, new works were ones which hadn't been seen before, but still fit within the established aesthetic framework of tradition. Art Noveau was new. Beethoven was new. The electric guitar was new. Since 1900, most of what is "new" in the arts, however, is that which rejects tradition and standards entirely, because where standards and traditions are to be found, so too will one find a hierarchy, and if there is a hierarchy, there is discrimination — but without such discrimination, good from bad cannot be differentiated and improvement or quality cannot exist. Do people still want new and interesting pieces to listen to? Yeah, but they also want those pieces to be good. I'm sort of repeating myself here, but it's necessary. Much contemporary music is just to serve as or aid the sale of a product. Think of all the assembly-line pop music that plays in the shopping malls. Much like with Kandinsky, Picasso, or Shoenberg's avant-garde noise music, it's all about churning out product as fast as you can, getting youtube subscribers, getting it in the next vapid Marvel movie trailer, slaving 12+ hours a day in Hans Zimmer's music factory, etc. so you can (hopefully) fill your coffers. Obviously, there is good pop music, there are still great composers for the orchestra and folk bands, but much like painters, sculptors, architects, etc. who are still good — whose works are the result of real mastery over their respective crafts — are usually banished by the elite into the realm of hobbyists. That's my answers to your questions. Hope it helps

.

Hello, I bring you again a new modern music solo piano, it was inspired on the fallen British soldiers fo the WW2. Feedback always appreciated Stay safe!

I think it would be beneficial if the competition guidelines/rules somehow stretch each contestant without squelching his/her own artistic voice. A scenario would be nice I feel. Maybe something along the lines of trying to convince a patron to support you financially? Your composition could be your 'interview' (I'm reminded here of Bach and the Brandenburg Concertos.) We could give you a bio sketch of the patron—keeping it as musically neutral as possible so that nobody is forced to compose in a particular style—and see how well you cater to the likes/dislikes of that person. Just an idea. Feel free to shoot it down or modify it as you see fit.

Both @Quinn and @AngelCityOutlaw have given me lots of ponder-fodder. Perhaps the most striking observation from your posts is how closely tied music and artistic expression are to a society's "temperature." It's not really something I've stopped to consider for any great length of time. The depreciation of high culture and the glorification of instantly gratifying artwork seems a sure symptom of societal decline, much like that of Rome or Greece or any other great civiliation on the trash heap of history. Our cultural nearsightedness—and here I'm referring specifically to that of Anglo cultures as I have no experience with other cultural groups—is but the tip of an enormous iceberg. This iceberg, borne of decadence and complacency, is the short-term mindset that pervades almost all of our society. For whatever reason, our postmodern warriors have "arrived" and are able to deem the deeds of humankind from not-too-distant centuries as misogynistic, racist, fascist, and a slew of other "isms" that work out to be nothing short of pure evil. I suppose I should find it comforting that postmodernists of the 2020's discovered the code of morality and are finally able to apply it to the chronicles of history. It seems to me that we do nothing of lasting import. As mentioned in a previous post, anything of societal acclaim is severely defined by the times: films, art, TV shows, music, songs—you name it—if it wins an award, you can guarantee it is fraught with social issues that have surfaced only in the last few decades or so. Gone is the timelessness of art that speaks to the universality of humans across time and space. As a society, we cannot see past the issues that affect us now, and we're even willing to rewrite history so that it better fits our narratives. (Please do not misunderstand. The societal evils that plague us today should not be ignored. However, the nearsightedness that demands we see these evils in every human action and thought is not helpful, and, by definition, will only result in a short-term solution to these problems.) Despite my cynical tone, I'm not saying that any of this is morally wrong (although some of it is logically inconsistent). I think Maarten's questions allude to the deeper issues that plague Western societies, and are a testament to just how far-reaching this internal decay actually is. Fewer and fewer Westerners are able to see beyond the confines of their own struggles, and before long the "high culture torch" will pass on: to China or Japan or Korea (South), perhaps? Lol, as a lover of all things philosophical, I am a bit pleased at where this discussion has led us. 🙂

Adding chords to an existing melody will usually result in a stronger melody because it's not being affected by a pre-determined harmony. Start with a harmony first and you will tend to follow the chord tones already there.

You can do both at the same time as well, construct the melody and the harmony together. This all takes trying and work, so either way you'll have to go back and forth until everything works properly.

You'll find yourself finding both useful in different situations. Know how to do both.

^^^ Impossible to disagree with most of what you've said. Should your views be thought cynical that's because they're realistic and (at risk of using the term) "truthful". What you've said is how it really is. "Modern Art" - well as I said, it's all about money. If you can get enough art experts to push your wares you're in, all swathed in intellectual-sounding claptrap. Technology hasn't helped. Anyone can now fiddle around with a daw or notation software and a few samples and claim to be a composer. The sample market is loaded with superlatives - buy our product and you'll be the greatest composer born to this world. So even Vienna has come up with oven-ready orchestration - its Big Bang orchestra and the series that has spawned. Many others are at it. Join a few chunks in a sequencer, press the button and there's your instant film score.....except for 999 ‰ it'll get nowhere. But they do sell their stuff. Pre-made, just add water. Lego. Call that music? Well, technically it is but composing?

Love the continued interest! I'll make an official post with participants, judges, rules, etc. at the end of the month. I'll judge or participate, whatever we need more

Ok. I'm in too. It's my first participation on the competition...which are the rules and when are we starting?

Nice. That's an interesting realization on one of the most beautiful quartets. But I would change some of the voices, there are some parallel 5ths and octaves and uncompleted harmonies I would review. Second half of bar 2 you have parallel 5th Violin I and II and the C chord have no 3rd. I would change the Violin II E instead of C, then both problems are solved. Also second half of bar 3 parallel 8ths Violin I-Viola and paralel octaves Violin II-Cello. Also duplicating the 3th on first inversion chords (beginning of bar 2 and 3) I don't feel it's the best option, I would try to duplicate the root or the 5th as first choice and the 3rd as an alternative, or when the lines with the 3rd move in contrary motion, which is not the case.