Nik Mikas

I like it when people realize that music's in the performance.

Missed this. Margo Schulter, a medieval music master and microtonal figure-head, is also a female. (:

La Monte Young - Master. His style is a mix of electrical precision and old Indian style. His work for just-tuned piano is epic. He's also a student of Moondog, who is credited with starting the modern minimalist movement by people like Glass. Here's an exerpt from the "Theater of Eternal Music" Harry Partch - Master. He invented his own system, forwarded all of Just-intonation theory, and invented numerous wonderful instruments to play his equally wonderful works. I rank him with Monteverdi and Berlioz in terms of his musical theater. Here's him playing his just found this: http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jstarret/Listen.html and this: http://www.dalleh.com/djd/infusions/pro_download_panel/download.php? and this: http://works.music.columbia.edu/~chris/micromidi/ I'm not at my own computer so I don't have many links. Will post some later. The whole idea of "microtonality", though, is silly, because it instantly connects 12 equal temperament with a "standard" tonal organization, which is clearly limiting at best. Any string player will tell you that a d-flat is a different tone than c-sharp, and the only thing telling us otherwise is an old compromise called the tempered keyboard. So bad has it gotten that many people (especially in so called atonal or serial schools) don't even view sharps and flats as anything more than typographical options (there was a thread on here if you can find it, asking when it was appropriate to use sharps or flats. The vast majority gave no thought to the tonal implications at all). In terms of notation, the link robin gave is good, but self experimentation is usually the best. But overall, the sagittal system is my favourite. Though I never use it in it's codified form, I was using arrows for some time and this system is a vast refinement on that idea. P.S. join the yahoo tuning group ;)

RULE THE FIRST!!!1!: Only compositions containing sufficient levels of both complicatedness and complexity are good. RULE THE SECOND!!!: We define "complicatedness" by the ratio of hamsters to violists in the state of Illinois, and define "complexity" by the difference between the Earth's distance from the Sun as compared to Jupiter's second known moon. Therefore, we can now see that Classic Chinese music adheres to the complexity factor, but is lacking a sufficient respect for complicatedness. Similarly, the works of J.S. Bach are virtual models of utilizing the hamster/violist in illinois ratio, but often neglects the Europa calculations. "I find this conclusion both exciting and - initially at least - alarming...the constraints are tighter than I bargained for." To Tokke: Ever heard of Korrespondierenden Soziet

Matt Sims.... did you go to Wexford?

(:

PRAISE JESUS!

This reminds me of how the monks used to practice their chants.

holy scraggy

Here, let's compare: YouTube - Dietrich Buxtehude - Op. 1 No. 4 <----------------------- Trio Sonata YouTube - Arcangelo Corelli - Sonata in G, Op.1 YouTube - Vivaldi - Trio Sonata in D Minor "La Folia" RV63 YouTube - Mozart Trio for Clarinet Viola and Piano 'Kegelstatt' (1/3) YouTube - J.S.Bach - Trio Sonata No.2 in C minor, Vivace (BWV 526a) <------------------------------- almost there....YouTube - J. S. Bach Trio Sonata 3th. Movement <----- OMG FUGUE YouTube - Duo Piano Mozart Fugue http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/trio-sonata-organ-g-major-16481-3.html#post258239

LOL

Just keep in mind the basics: Range. Typically the octave is the limit as anyone is guaranteed to be able to play it, but that hasn't stopped people from writting with 9ths or 10ths to be played with one hand. Playability. This isn't so much a 'if' question as it is a 'how easy' question regarding the piano. While it's definately possible to write passages that are just physically too wide in range to be played by one player and thus unplayable by default, determining playability based on difficulty is obviously harder because it's an individual thing. However, some standards exist, and it's always good to make your music as accessible as possible. In this respect, certain efforts should be made to write passages in a manner that can be easily sight-read, especially in large runs or other such techniques. However, not being a pianist, you may look at a passage and consider it unplayable while someone trained may look at the same passage and think "easy", so get players to review your work. Musical tools. Don't forget the results of using such pianistic effects as octave doubling, thick chords, very fast passagework, double/triple/quadruple trills/tremolo (tremoli?), etc... For scores that really speak to the keyboardists hands there are really too many to list, and even trying to do so is pretty futile. Still, to get an understanding of how the keyboardist thinks check Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Debussy, Lizst, Schumann, Alkan, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, etc... Other than that just read scores and maybe a piano technique book.

So, it's not a 'real' expressive tool, it's just a tool certain artists used to express themselves and their ideas/opinions.....

What the hell is going on here?