Leaderboard

I think it's important to distinguish between two very different things: orchestral music as an art form orchestral music as an industry As an art form, I think it is very important for people to always be experimenting with new ideas, and I always encourage them to do so, even if the end result is something I don't personally like (e.g. Schoenberg, et al.) Who knows, maybe the experimentation may eventually lead to something exciting, or may encourage someone else to discover something interesting. As long as someone considers their art form an expression of something meaningful to them, I can't fault them as an artist. (Even if I don't like what they make). As an industry, however, is another matter completely. Lately it seems like I keep seeing articles pop up about the "classical music world" that come in two varieties: "Oh no, orchestras are going bankrupt, concert attendance continues to decline, why is this, what do we do???" "Oh no, the public doesn't 'understand' contemporary classical music, why not, how do we educate them???" My immediate thought is that the former is a direct result of the latter. It's not that they don't understand it, it's that they don't like it. And since they don't like it, they don't show up to concerts. You shouldn't have to educate someone on why your product is good, it should be apparent. Furthermore, I don't think the "public" isn't interested in orchestral music. Concerts by Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and even those less-"household" names like Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky, Mahler are regularly well attended, at least where I am. And I'll go even further and say the "public" is even interested in hearing orchestral music by living composers. My local orchestra regularly puts on concerts of John Williams scores (Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc.), and those concerts SELL OUT. (I'm sure we could debate John Williams music ad nauseum, but that is a topic for another thread. My point is that people are willing to buy tickets to see orchestral music by a living composer, which defeats the belief that the public is not interested in contemporary orchestral music.) To answer OP's question: I think the lack of financial success of contemporary classical music is due to a failure to give the people what they want and are willing to pay for. This doesn't necessarily make it bad art per se, but it isn't something you should expect to build an industry on. It seems like for whatever reason academia has aligned itself with training composers to write a certain kind of music, and the orchestras have aligned themselves with championing this certain kind of music, but most people don't seem to have any interest in paying to hear this certain kind of music. Thus, we are in the predicament that we are in... I will offer a glimmer of hope: I think in the year 2020 it is easier than it has ever been to write and produce orchestral music (or chamber, vocal, etc.) and it will only get easier. Through most of history, most composers that rose to prominence did so through some kind of "connections", either through knowing someone in the industry, or through getting into an elite conservatory that connected them with big names in the industry, or simply by being born into a prominent musical family, etc. Now more than ever, it is easier for your average Joe to get their hands on notation software, DAWs, sample libraries, etc. Any information about theory, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, etc. is easily available online. Websites like this one exist for composers to meet, collaborate, and share ideas. And there are many accessible platforms like YouTube, Soundcloud, etc. for getting music out to an audience. Maybe all this will lead to a new avenue, separate from the traditional conservatory route, for composers to get their music heard. I at least hope it does.

Another short clip

That's extremely accurate! I'll go even further and say that the academic interests don't align at all with any kind of industry what so ever, and instead are interested in art for art's sake. You can have both things, but you can't expect art for art's sake to be the foundation of any kind of industry. I don't believe this was ever the point or intention. The main issue is mostly people moaning about not getting their stuff played because it's not a popular style of music. That's ALWAYS going to happen by the very definition of the music being unpopular. To this, I think, the best way to do things is to take care of your own stuff. Can't find an orchestra? Then get really good at using many of the fantastic VST orchestra library plugins to make your own damn performance. This is harder if it's chamber music or if it's relying too much on extended techniques, but come on, there's a lot of ways to get things done. Or at least approximate it. None of it is a deterrent, it's only a temporary setback. And if it's cool enough and you're clever, you'll figure out a way to get it stuff performed live no matter how weird it may be (speaking from experience here...) The point is having clearly defined goals. Are you trying to get into the industry, or are you trying to make art for art's sake?

Nice. m. 14 is really the only thing that stands out to me as something strange. You've been pretty consistent with the 2+2 harmonic rhythm but it seems to break here. I hear it this way because what seems like a passing chord of D seems to be the intentional note (V/ii) but ends up sounding like bVII - ii in the end with a longer dissonant primary note (E˚). That could just be me, though.

For that clarinet point: I played clarinet for nearly twenty years and I wouldn't be able to do those high notes. I'm sure it is doable for someone who is an orchestra, but it seems pretty high. I haven't played for a bit now, though, so I cannot honestly say.

Very nice! m. 1 - 5 - Exposition (stating your main F# minor motive twice an octave apart) m. 6 - 13 - 1st Episode (sequencing a modified version of your motive and ending in A major) m. 14 - 19 - 2nd Exposition (restating your main motive now in A major twice an octave apart) m. 20 - 23 - 2nd Episode (sequencing through B minor, D major and ending on an F#7 chord) m. 24 - 26 - Middle Entry of the motive (in B minor) m. 27 - 36 - 3rd Episode (introducing a new 32nd note figure and sequencing through B minor, C major, and ending on a G#7 chord) m. 37 - 38 - Middle Entry of the motive (in C# minor) m. 39 - 41 - 4th Episode (sequencing into F# minor) m. 42 - 44 - Middle Entry of the motive (in F# minor) m. 45 - 50 - 5th Episode (sequencing from F# minor back to F# minor) m. 51 - 60 - Final Recapitulation (staying in F# minor with a slight deceptive cadence at the end before resolving finally in F# minor) Overall a very enjoyable invention! Hope to hear more in the future. Thanks for the music.

hello guys this is my new song i hope you like it! any criticism is welcome.

Hi luderart. What you have is nice and diatonic - my ear is begging for some kind of chromaticism to change things up. Also, melodically you pretty much don't stray from restating your melodies at successively different pitch levels (which in music theory is call sequencing). It would be nice to hear a few more changes that stray away from a direct transposition of your melodic material into a new (diatonic) pitch level. Thats my suggestion - I hope it helps! 😃

Hi there! I’m also a cellist who is looking to expand my range and record/play different kinds of compositions. I would love to record this piece and get your feedback on it. Thanks!