johnsamuelpike

The only difference between tonality and atonality is that atonality doesn't supply a sense of personal taste or sensory stimulus other than a distinct insolent bleakness. Amongst people who are endlessly searching, this may seem like an alluring black hole, but among paying customers, it is rarely little more than wayward, childish nonsense which fails to uplift.

This short clip pretty much expresses my feelings: YouTube - Zw

You've created an image. Now why not try an emotional journey? I've listened to this mp3 twice, and I'm very sorry to say this, but I don't think writing like this takes very much realization and consideration. I could see this as a choreographed ballet work, where one could appreciate the dancing, but not in a concert hall. It relies on randomness and disorder: something attainable in any amateur. It isn't enough for me to just simply have a texture divided by the occasional percussion instrument. I require blatant motifs, craftsmanship, beautiful melodies, at least some pleasant harmony, shape, and above all, stimuli. For me, so much modernist music (and modern art) has inspired but one uniform feeling: insolent bleakness. A few good examples of this emotional medium are valuable, but I believe the single feeling has been explored and exhausted ad nauseum. It's time to move past it, or at the very least, offer contrast along with it. Some people may look at a Jackson Pollock painting and say they feel something. Anyone might admit that it's decorative and dramatic. Others may look deeper at it and feel offended at its arrogance: like the artist wanted to rub in the viewers' faces that he is smarter, and knows something they don't--and he will not stoop so low as to contour to their more commonplace sentiments or emotions, but while achieving this with minimal skill or effort so as to achieve the maximum level of offence. Further still, some might see it as a sort of deficiency merely disguised as esotericism.

I enjoyed the work. I was just curious about your rationale for using four horns. Is it a personal touch? An emulation? Or is it just tailored to a specific ensemble? I personally enjoy using three flutes and three trumpets on occasion, but have never had the urge to use more than two horns.

Atonal music certainly is not dead, but the idea that it is the only musical language of this time period that need be explored and expanded is quite stale and dated. There will always be new tonalists.

I would have to say that for me it is an affinity of tastes.

I like the smallest size manuscript paper too. The smaller the better. I really prefer Passantino papers.

Yes! This is certainly a supporting device for my previous post. They embraced their predcessors' discoveries and emulated them into their own taste achieving success, whereas they may not have if their vanity insisted on appearing to be beyond the influence of anyone else's discoveries. It's always a shame to dance to the tune of a closed-minded modernist who stifles himself by snubbing the more illustrious past and its energies by using the same predictable arguments over and over: it's not enough freedom. It cultivates MORE freedom! Have you ever noticed which classical composers draw interest from the public and sell concert tickets? Though pleasing an audience should be a relatively less significant part of one's creative process compared to conveying your own insight and musical powers, one should not ignore these cultural observations by blinding themselves with obstinance. Do people think one would encounter less freedom from mastering an "antiquated" style? Quite the contrary. One would become more fluent in all styles for doing so, should one decide to do so.

Any thoughts on-topic?

Oops! That's what I meant! :thumbsup: Edited.

Have you ever wondered why modern music written in the romantic style is usually widely accepted as valid without any eyebrows raised, while music in the baroque or classical styles is often harshly written off as pastiche? Is it because classical and baroque music is more "threatening" (i.e. powerful), or is it simply because much stylized romantic music is less scandalous and more unremarkable? What are your thoughts? My support naturally defaults to the underdogs. My heart holds with the classical and baroque, and I am always very encouraged by composers willing to ignore the scathing of narrow-minded modernists and follow their hearts. I feel very strongly that any composer who writes a classical piano sonata or baroque fugue in a week could write an atonal modernist composition in a tiny fraction of that alloted time. I also feel that modernist compositional devices are often the result of a lacking of a true understanding of more scientific musical function and craftsmanship disguised as a more broad and free limitless expression (in other words, inaccessible and inept disguised as prodigious). I do not discourage revolution, but rather, encourage it. The most revolutionary composers always emulated their predecessors to the best of their abilities before arriving at their creative zeniths, but most people know this. I am not saying that experimentation and original ideas are poison at all, but I'd sooner embrace a modern composer for mastering the science of more traditional harmonies before (or after, maybe) embarking on harmonically innovative endeavors, and I am certain not to be unique in this sense. Embrace the ancient divine spark and pass it on. Side note: Did anyone catch the marvelous use of remixed Handel in Charlie Wilson's War? It gave me chills! To me, most modernist music couldn't possibly achieve that poignant effect, if any could at all. Counterpoint is the way forward.

Le Tombeau de Couperin by Ravel.

Your counterpoint has improved a lot! Remember to close some phrases (cadences) throughout your contrapunctal composition. It really helps to stop and start back up when it comes to these subject and answer pieces. I have noticed a lot of your baroque forms lately, and I think you should try your hand at passacaglia some time.

Thank you for the encouragement, but there is far too much defaming here on this site to be deserving of my musical contributions. I'm happy to share them privately.

My own music makes me cry the most. I'm very self-reactive.