Leaderboard

Lithl, I think about this all the time. In some ways, I think that pure music has been mostly "solved". As an avid chess player, it's like seeing Magnus Carsen play chess. He often just doesn't even bother with the best opening theory (which is once again...pretty much solved) but rather uses his innate abilities to play slightly weaker lines and grind the advantage out. But yeah, in pure musical terms...even if something is solved, I think there is plenty of room for innovation and individual expression. I think perhaps it was Schoenberg that said something like, "plenty of good music in C major remains to be written?" But yeah, I hear you man. Personally, I feel like it's hard to tell apart really scrafty music and music that sounds like scraggy if that makes sense. I sometimes feel I like need a PhD in music or some formal training to appreciate some of the music that sounds like scraggy. On the other hand, as you have stated, I sometimes feel because of the low barrier to entry to write and share music, there is a lot of really scrafty music out there that people should probably just keep to themselves. To your point about pushing buttons and getting novel sounds, I disagree about how you view this somewhat. Obviously as musicians, our greatest asset is our ears. And even if we are not directly making the sounds and even able to perhaps replicate the sounds on our own...music will always be music. At least that's what gives me hope as a composer. If it sounds cool and good, then it was worth it all along. Just my 2 cents, thanks for articulating some feelings about composition and starting a discussion.

Analysis!!! Title+Bars 1-15 So, firstly, the title is just 'Fugue but you lost'. Where is the composer name? Also, I recommend (personal preference) saying something like Fugue on the theme of 'Insert something'. Writing 'Fugue but You Lost' kind of makes it seem unprofessional. (You have told us the reason behind it.) I like how you wrote Allegro (♩= 120). It gives an approximation of practice tempo (♩= 96) if this were to be performed. You never know. The beginning phrase (Eb Ab G Ab) makes it feel like Ab major a bit. I like how it is disguised. The whole opening phrase (bars 1-4) is is completely playable and musically intresting. Good job. Trouble starts at Bar 5, where you expect the performer to be Rachmaninov. Or Liszt. Or an alien. one of these three. Please do keep in mind that normal humans cannot reach such like the compound minor 6th in the first beat of the 6th bar. If instead you meant to split up in the two hands, however, then please delete or hide the rests. Do mind the parallel movements in the section. In Bar 11, a third voice is introduced effectively. We have heard the theme in two voices before. but now, it is also in the third. I would like point that the rests on Bar 11 Beat 2 feel completely unnecessary, and should just be a minim. (starting on the first beat). Bars 16-25 Bar 16, we have this nice ending to the ascension of a single hand. I do not believe that a rest is important here, as the notation should best kept simple and human-legible. By Bar 20, we already have semiquavers. Nice use of rhythm to add texture, although I don't really like Bar 23, with all of those staccato notes in the bass, although I love how you reused the main theme in the bassline of Bar 24. Bars 26-44 (Page 2) In Bar 26, you continue the development beginning at Bar 24. I really like this bar, and also the two bars right after. I don't really like the triplet in the bass of Bar 28. It feels unneccasary, and perhaps, a single G would do better. The following might sound better on a real instrument, so I will leave it as it is. It is a unique idea. Bar 31, that upper mordent could change to a lower mordent and the lower mordent in Bar 32 can change to an upper mordent. It feels more 'optmistic'... I don't know... Something tells me that is better. I also love how you came back to the theme in Bar 32. *passage from bar 33 to bar 36. Not too interesting.* Bar 37 introduces one of my favourite matierials in the whole fugue. You have used repeated notes to it's best extent at the best time you can in this fugue. Tremendous. This continues until Bar 41. Bar 41 feels too chunky. Bars 45-54 The passage from Bar 42 to Bar 46 is not bad, but Bar 47 is GOLD. That hesitation at the end of the bar feels like you are hanging on the side of a cliff. You reannounce the main material (I lost the game) in Bar 49-50 explicitly, but notice your great use of it in other places too, such as the bottom voice in 51, the top voice in 52, the second half of 53's top voice and the full bar of 53's middle voice. You also sneaked in even more in Bar 54, with that inverted material in the voice, and at the end of the bar you top voice, if you take out the bottom voice, only quarter note values found, you get Ab, F, Eb, F, which is also the inverted material! Absolutely ingenious section! Bars 55-67 (Page 3) Ok. Transition metals are Scandium Yttrium Lutetium Lawrencium Titanium Zirconium Hafnium Rutherfordium Vanadium Niobium Tantalum Dubnium Chromium Molybdenum Tungsten Seaborgium Manganese Technetium Rhenium Bohrium Iron Ruthenium Osmium Hassium Cobalt Rhodium Iridium Meitnerium Nickel Palladium Platinum Darmstadtium Copper Silver Gold Zinc Cadmium Mercury ... I did all of that as a joke... So anyways, you transition into a lot of different keys, I won't keep up. This goes from bar 59. I don't know what happened in bar 60. I guess I missed Sheet Music War 1 (SMWI). Seriously. Why are there 2 treble clefs? do you require such notation? Can't you just use a Tenor Treble Clef thingy? Also, there is something weird happening from Bar 61-63, but it sound good and seem playable to me so ok then. Bars 68-72 The rest is just a coda, which is good, but you could improve it by extending the note length of the final chord. Overall, it is a nice, cool, piece that has some potential! Congrats! -TristanTheTristan

Hello @Martynas123, I enjoyed your scherzo—it shows good compositional instincts and creativity! Here are my comments: Score legibility: The first thing I noticed is that your piece is not in G major at all (as implied by the key signature), but D major. Bars 25-39 should have the G major key signature, on the other hand. Additionally, the Ab in bars 34-38 should be changed to G#, is its the third of an E major chord. This is a bit more far-reaching—but I’m convinced that your piece is in 4/4 rather than 3/4, excluding the middle section from m. 25-39. I took the liberty of re-notating the first few bars in that way: The left hand in bars 40-49 should be notated in treble clef for consistency. I would have you consider revising the pedal markings, as some of them conflict with chord changes as well as staccato articulations. I would actually omit them entirely — they’re not really necessary in this piece. I liked your use of staccato markings! You might consider adding slurs as well on some of the figures you’ve left unmarked. Hairpins are also good to bridge some of the abrupt dynamic changes and lead to climax points. Some of your minims had staccato markings, which shouldn’t be the case. I don’t think the middle section needs to be marked “Minuet”. Since this is a scherzo, you could mark it as “Trio” instead. Compositional decisions: The form itself is well thought through! I see an A section (m. 1-24), a contrasting B section with transition (25-39), and a recap of the A section with short coda (40-62). The contrast of different tonalities is good too. I would omit the one-bar moderato introduction—it doesn’t really connect to the rest of the piece, and the dotted crotchets are unnecessarily complex to read. Since the A and A’ sections have a lot of repetition inside them, I would the omit the repeat bars in those parts. Otherwise the repetition gets a bit tiring. I would suggest revisiting the middle section—the harmony feels a bit incomplete, starting on a second inversion tonic triad and ending on an unaccompanied tonic note. That’s my main feedback on the piece. Great work overall! I’m curious—what’s been your compositional training so far? Have you studied any harmony/counterpoint/form, or are you mostly self-taught?