Jump to content

Opaqueambiguity

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    36

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Opaqueambiguity

Profile Information

  • Gender
    NA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Opaqueambiguity's Achievements

Explorer

Explorer (4/15)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

2

Reputation

  1. Opaqueambiguity
    Opaqueambiguity changed their profile photo
  2. Opaqueambiguity
    This is underdeveloped. That's the opposite of overdeveloped.
  3. Opaqueambiguity
    Music publishers did, over the course of the last 400 years. It's whatever, you are absolutely right. Ever since the advent of modernism most traditional conventions are open to being retooled, appropriated, and even rejected. I do believe cataloging your work is important, I do as well. However I don't refer to it as opus numbers, because it does seem misleading. It is important to note that traditionally a single opus number could denote a collection of works, not each individually. If a set of pieces was published together it may have a single opus number for the whole set, and then each piece would have a subnumber associated with it. This is generally why a lot of prolific composers didn't have really high opus numbers comparable to their output; most works wouldn't be published at all, especially shorter ones. When shorter ones were published, it tended to be in collections that would all carry a single opus number. My cataloging doesn't fit anything resembling that, so instead of labeling something as Opus # such and such, I simply place the number after the title. For example a title might look something like "Beautiful Love Song (#235)" When I was a kid, I would assign a catalogue number to each individual movement, and then another one to the piece as a whole. This is probably not how I would do it today, but I don't want to break my own conventions at this point, and I don't want to renumber the whole catalogue.
  4. Opaqueambiguity
    The one I get paid to do
  5. Opaqueambiguity
    You know damn well what I'm talking about Sojar. That is not standard practice. It is ostentatious and unprofessional. Of course anyone is free to name and catalogue their work however they choose. It's just that sometimes, if you apply a convention to your pieces in a way that makes it seem like you don't know what the convention actually comes from, it makes it look like you don't know what you are doing. If you are an amateur composer who has never been published, and you present a piece to any serious person in the industry, and you say it is Opus 292 there is a good chance they think you're ignorant at best, and at worst are laughing at you, and will laugh at you with other industry folk who understand how stupid it is. It's whatever. You are right, ideologically. So, whatever.
  6. Opaqueambiguity
    Opus numbers are traditionally assigned only to published pieces, usually by the publisher not the composer.
  7. Opaqueambiguity
    Welcome to the industry.
  8. Opaqueambiguity
    Maybe not to you. Maybe the fact that I said anything at all woupd stimulate discussion. I don't really care. And I really have never understood this impulse to discourage discussion. Take it for what it is. Ignore it if it doesn't help. The music world doesn't care for your feelings. If you can't handle some mildly dismissive commentary from a stranger you are in for a major dissapointment when you start putting your work out to a wider audience.
  9. Opaqueambiguity
    Okay, that's fair enough. However, are you familiar with the uncanny valley? It is a phenomenon in which something that is close to something we expect but not quite becomes unnerving, creepy, unpleasent, etc. It is generally used to describe how a robot looking robot does not make most people uncomfortable, and an entirely human like robot does not make most people uncomfortable, but a robot that is almost human has an effect of seeming creepy and weird, In any case, that seems comparable to what this makes me feel. It is obviously not atonal or serial. There is a strong sense of tonality, but your awkward application of it does not give me the sense of novelty or any sort of interest. Rather it comes off as someone using "the wrong chord" on purpose just for the feeling of wrongness it induces. Which I don't think works. If you dig it fantastic. And for the record, generally, with exceptions, modern and neomodern tonal set ups are usually not random. In fact a great deal of dissonant works have very targeted and intentional tonal structures. Although, of course there are composers who have utilized random arrangements, including a lot of serial work.
  10. Opaqueambiguity
    Not really your place to say.
  11. Opaqueambiguity
    This is nice enough, but so short. It didn't really have much of a chance to go anywhere. I mean, it sounds like a prelude. No real high points or notable moments, just some brief ideas stated once. This deserves more.
  12. Opaqueambiguity
    The inversion thing is a minor point. It doesn't have as big an affect as an academic would lead themself to believe. Looking out for those sorts of things is surely a hallmark of well crafted work, but it doesn't speak much to the more general merits of a piece. This is pretty enough, I do feel like you are going for a style that would benefit from more harmonic variation. It is common for amateur composers to repeat a harmony and "Jam" on it, so to say. However, this is not jazz. It could be jazz, if it was jazzier. Maybe it is jazz, but that would make it pretty crummy jazz. Point is, find some structure and branch out with varied progressions in neighboring key areas to add interest and depth to the piece.
  13. Opaqueambiguity
    I think the chords sound fine. I do think the warning of sinking too many ideas into a piece is a wise one for almost any circumstance, this one for sure as well. There is not much development here. I can hear about three distinct ideas coming forward. They all seem nice enough, treat them well and you could have a nice piece. Now, I would recommend, at some point in the piece, for a good contrast, make sure to have a part that isn't so nice. Beauty is more prominent when pain and ugliness are presented alongside it. Just a suggestion.
  14. Opaqueambiguity
    So what do you think makes exciting music?
  15. Opaqueambiguity
    I wouldn't go for orchestral percussion, that doesn't seem to fit with what this is. If you are unhappy with the percussion I would encourage you to focus on the production quality. Get better sounds, or better yet get someone to record it for you on an actual set. Sounds like a rap beat, for sure. Not a bad one at all. Could be some interesting electronic music come out of it.
  16. Opaqueambiguity
    Opus 292?
×
×
  • Create New...