RavingSpleen

Gonna jump on the negativity bandwagon here and do loathing.

One: The purpose of this thread is to provide information about this particular competition. In depth comments and critiques on entries should be posted on the entry's own thread, not in this one. This is a view previously expressed by "The J": Two: You weren't defending your entry, you were whining about another entry doing "better". There's a difference. Three: I'm not telling you to clear off. I'm only asking you to discuss it in a more appropriate thread. You could have easily expressed these views: in a thread discussing which is more important: the arranging and mixing or the actual composition. (And, to be completely honest, many people on this forum probably won't see it from your perspective.) In essence, your argument is not constructive because it is misplaced (thereby not allowing it to be readily supported or negated) and because it is centered on comparing your work to another's. Signing out.

In real life, sopranos are much louder and much more annoying than altos. Yes, chances are the soprano wasn't recorded the best. You're not writing your piece for sound samples, so don't tailor your dynamics for them. It's as simple as that.

To the above three: this is not the place to discuss your issues. Take it somewhere private. Edit: Thanks James. I try.

Well that's honorable of you. And of course the music is much more important before it's processed by a computer, and I think that's what I was trying to show to Pavloff et al in my comments. I remember back when J.S. Bach was in his late forties his great friend Telemann showed him a prototype steam-powered computer he obtained from the Royal Academy of Sciences in London, which Newton built. Telemann strongly urged Bach to consider using it to help compose the Musical Offering, but Bach refused. Telemann kept the machine and went on to compose his Alster suite, Don Quixote, and other pretty good works. However, the rest is history, no? And I enjoy being shady. I had some anecdotal evidence before to convince you to obtain samples but your 15th edit nullified it. I still respect your desicions (and your music). (Edit: BTW, I think Rolifer summed up my side of the argument in your thread for your piece.)

Congrats everyone! Especially James. He took on full sample libraries with midi from like 1999 and came close! Just goes to show it's really about the music and not so much the ambience. (I still hold by my suggestion though. Get some decent samples!) I thought a Star Wars knock-off would have done well here. I'll have to rethink that one next time.

Corrected. :D

Et al. Which brings up a good point. You might want to look into a University rather than a Conservatory, or at least a Conservatory with a partnership with another University in case you want to take some classes outside your major. Do note I said "probably won't have to take all of those 101's that you won't need". If you're in a conservatory, you won't. If you're in a University, compared to somone with an undecided or unspecific major, it will be significantly less. Depending on the school, you will most likely have a writing requirement, and roughly 30 units of GenEd: depending on the size of the school, you can take basically anything that interests you that satisfies that requirement. I know people that have taken Psychology courses, Business, Languages, etc. You will be choosing courses you will want to learn, and that's the benifit because you're not stuck to any one particular track in that, unlike a non-music major. I should have clarified so thanks for calling me out on that. But I never said it exempted you from it.

I loved not having to worry about AP's and SAT II's and all the College Board's bullshit (although i took both tests :P). One benefit of being a music major: you probably wont be sitting in all of those 101's that you really don't need (esp. math, yuck, unless you're going into music tech). So on the surface it's pretty neat, but you have to be dedicated. And the dedication starts before you even start applying as everyone knows. The best thing you can do is put together a portfolio of your best works, make 'em look real nice, and contact composition professors from different schools, if you don't know the one you want to study with. Tell them you're a prospective student and want to get a chance to meet with them and have them review your portfolio. Basically you're setting up a lesson with the person. Older people (i.e. older than you) generally respect initiative and won't say no to your resquest; however, their schedule may be backed up. Don't just email them your stuff. Talk to them face to face. Then the rest is simple. Dress nicely, meet with the guy, and see what he says. Make sure you shake his hand and look him in the eye. Also be prepared to answer questions about your compositions-don't be an idiot and go 'uhhh...well...dumdumdumdum", talk genuinely and assertively about what you're ideas are. You want to sound educated. Ok so you get the point. Don't be afraid to ask him what you need to improve on, how you should go about doing it, and if you have a chance in getting to the school. He won't waste your time: if you don't have a chance he will say so, but you'll still get some criticism, so you win no matter what. Obviously you'll be looking to meet with professors in your area, don't call Dr. Joe Shmoe of the University of the Bottom of the Pacific Ocean if you live in Kansas. Unless he happens to be visiting. Plus side of this is that if you go to school in state it will be cheap, and if the prof. likes you/ your work you'll have better luck with scholarships. This was basically my process but I was instead scheduling lessons with prospective teachers. This doesn't happen all the time, but in my case, if I didn't take a lesson prior to my audition with a certain teacher, I didn't get into his/her school. For music, you go to a school for the people, not the school itself. If it was the other way around, no one would go to Peabody or other small (but prestigious) conservatories :P.

As far as your piece was an exercise in four part harmony, it was successful. And I guess I miswrote, but I meant that your piece is too vertical in its writing to be Renaissance, not that it wasn't vertical enough. Keep in mind that I'm nitpicking (and also that I could very well be wrong); if you were to ask any old person the street, they would tell you that your piece sounded like it was Medieval. You can name your piece whatever you want: just be careful who your audience is. Like I said, the substance is there, you achieved what you set out to do (plus it sounded nice). If you want to pursue an interest in Renaissance music, I was just pointing out that, yes, this is a more of a mix-up of different styles. It's totally up to you though. Keep writing!

I listened to the piece a couple of times. It was enjoyable, so that's a good start. It almost felt like a song that was...well...without words. Your voice leading for the most part looks fine. I didn't take the time to scrutinize the score for parallels or other trip-ups. In case you have trouble with counterpoint, there's three things I like to remember: one goes up, the other goes down; if it sounds wrong, it probably is; and, occam's razor: the simplest line is the best (mainly stepwise). For simple writing, these three points are the most important to consder, in my mind. However, this is not a medieval piece, or even a renaissance piece, for two reasons: one, it is not in either style, and two, it was not written during either of the two time periods. So, how can you improve your renaissance writing abilities? (because writing medieval music is not fun by anyone's stretch of the imagination). First thing to keep in mind is that functional harmony had not been "invented" yet (excluding Montiverdi). So while you have these nice harmonic progressions, they really don't fit. You're thinking too vertically to write renaissance music. Think horizontally. (And, although some renaissance pieces SEEM to have harmonic progressions, it wasn't really a completely conscious choice by the composer). The first couple seconds or so of your piece sounded renaissance, but after that sounded like renaissance-imitation for that very reason. The second thing you can do to improve your writing is, as always, listen listen listen. And not just to recorder and horn consorts but also to plenty of vocal music, secular and religious. Instruments in renaissance times were still just voice-replacers (for the most part).

Well, to an extent, you're right. If the clarinet is too warm or cold, it will play out of tune (by the way, when it gets cold, the pitch drops...). But usually performers will warm up and tune before practice and performances, so this is not an issue, even for the most basic clarinetist (the issue will more likely be in the piano being out of tune). The problem for me, as a clarinetist, lies more in the slight differences in voicing between the A and the Bb. But again, it's a very small problem, if a problem at all. The fact is you can do whatever you want with switching clarinets. Keep in mind though that not every student player will have an A, if that's your audience, and that (as it has been mentioned) the tone of the A is slightly darker. Also keep in mind that in most orchestral and chamber literature, switching clarinets is simply for easier key signatures; most of the time it's not for reasons of tone. And for more perspective, there are very few solo pieces that I've come across that call for changing between movements, let alone during them. But that doesn't mean you can't do it. If you think the situation warrants it, then go ahead.

Yes, you're exactly right. I agree completely. It's just that I'm assuming that the OP plans on using the device in a modern idiom; otherwise it wouldn't make sense at all to use it, as people have previously said. I think you're taking it the wrong way. We're here to learn, not to listen to you tell us how you "get it" and how things should be. I was, at first, providing an opposite opinion on the matter that the OP brought forth. I realize I've gotten a bit heated in my defense, and I apologize for that. But I see things your way. I understand what you're saying and it could very well be true. I don't think that you fully comprehend what my argument is, so you're inclined to think that it's "wrong". I'm just suggesting that the OP give it a try, and that it could possibly be successful based on the points I've brought up.

Well, of course. I definitely got sidetracked but yes, you're right: if you want to do something new you have to do new things. But my argument (probably wasn't clear enough) was that you can do new things with old things...after all that's what composers do. The OP is suggessting that an old thing be used in a new way, and I think it rash to shoot that idea down. And lol @ Voce, I din't know that. Who thought that one up? Edit: Oh, and one more thing. I think it's great to use older forms, as Enigmus mentioned (madrigal, dance suite, etc.). But I don't believe (at least now) that writing in an outdated way is the best plan. (Look up John Williams's clarinet concerto; I think you'll realize that there's a less "commercial" side to even him).

For one, I did not say that John Adams was "cutting edge". In fact I said that he wasn't, but that he is still successful today. He gets jobs, and money (don't know about girls) and composes music in the present day, but as we both agree, is not "cutting edge". So I don't understand your argument. Oh, and by the way, imagine how much Bach would be making today: Radio, TV, CDs, Movies, even weddings :D Let's assume that you're the "cutting edge" composer in question. You eschew tonality and atonality because they're things of the past. What is left? The tacet void of space. Let's get rid of instruments too while we're at it, those are things of the past. Instead, you, the omniscient composer, will imagine a "composition" and after its completion instruct the audience to recreate the "composition" in their own minds via telepathy. I'm sorry I was enjoying myself :P. But can't you see what I'm saying? Well there clearly is a "backlash" at the way people compose because you stated previously that, "people who actually knows(sic) how non-functional and functional harmony WORK do a lot more than people who don't... and I mean do a lot more GOOD work." (you also commented about "using brains effectively", implying that those who supported the OP's chord don't). My accusations of "backlash" are well-founded. Look, if you're really interested in music then YOU should get a theory degree. If you think you're better than us "rats" then prove yourself, provide us with substance. If you think that ("classical") music is somehow remotely about success, money, possession, and fame, then you're incredibly mistaken. I and others aren't planning on majoring in music so we can be famous or even succesful one day. We play and compose because we love to. Music is a beautiful thing and when you try to stifle that beauty by suggesting that one should just "get with it", do it for the money, or not even simply use a specific chord, then you sour it for everyone. You and others think you know everything, and you parade around your cynicism and supposed knowledge of all things "cutting-edge", putting down everything in disagreement. I don't know everything and I don't pretend to. I'm not even 1/100th of a composer that the worst published composer is/was, even 1/1000th. But I can tell you that "getting with it" will get you nowhere you'll want to be.