SimenN

hehehe, yeah! this is a part of my doctorate! :P By all means Sojar! I agree, for me composing music like that is boring too. The point here is that people have different goals. Someone like yourself are interested in harmoy, myself included. My point is that if you cant bring something good to the composition why bother reveiw it? A constructive comment. That is offcoruse the right thing to do? No, Sojar! I dont hate you at all. I sometimes hate the way you review thats all. As for your music, I know its professionaly done, i know you are pasionate about your music and you have many performances. The performences alone is a testemony to your quality. So what we fundamentaly disagree on is : What a review is. Imitation of style is not personal. As i have stated 100 times before, every STYLE is "IMITATION". So here is a clame from me, when you imitate for a long enough time, it will become personal and who you are. if you really want to see if there is anything personal in my music i would recomend that you analyze 5 works of mine and 5 works of those composers who are within the style i write (at the moment particular vivaldi, corelli/torelli). You will find stuff in my music that you wont find in the others. But offcourse you will find 8 note 2 16 notes figure. Sus4, alot of suspension, the sequence of fifth. The most common baroque figures and progression etc. (as you would in every baroque work) Do you think my music can bring joy to a listener? If yes, my job is done and i rest my case :)

ah ok! :) "This is too stereotypical to make something fresh out of it. Millions of pop pieces have similar harmony. Find something fresher. Good luck." Lets take a look at this again! the ocean is blue is a fact. Sojars review was a bunch of personal claims. "make something fresh out of it" (fresh? is fresh for Sojar the same as fresh for me?) so no fact here "Millions of pop pieces have similar harmony" (Semi fact?) " Find something fresher" (fresh again?) not a fact the only fact here is that the sentence contains no facts :P Why do you even care about likes? if you only show your music to likeminded you well get a lot of likes! But does that mean that the music is good? if you show your music to people who dont like your style and you dont get a single like, does that mean its bad? Write music to express yourself, if you write music for the common ear or the few it should not matter :) And that is why i posted the comment to Sojar in the first place. If you cant say anything constuctive in a review, dont review it!! There is no point in writing comments like "this is bad, find something fresher etc" why? becuase its all subjective stuff. Maybe you dont like it, but maybe the 12 next listeners do. What you can point out though is compositional stuff like: Harmony, voiceleadning, orchestration, ideomatic writing, etc. If the composer fix the issues the composition would sound better! THAT is a review that worth something. And there is no such comment is Sojars review. If the comment was written by a 16 year old boy it would be one thing. But from a grown man who says he is a established composer and a "reviewer"? No, that is not ok in my world. Yeah, in some cases i agree. Its good to have comment from someone who knows the stuff, but its also great to have comments from those who dont know to much about music. I have done that many times, played my music for people who dont know much or anything about baroque. If i have used figures/orchestration to describe something sustantional. but i dont tell them what it is. I feel most satesfied when they understand what im trying to express. (does it give you a "good or bad "feeling? does it sound dark, sad, happy, what does it give you?). They hear the emoition. That is great, but that is only the surface of the music. Can they really hear the true meaning?. They rearly do because they dont know enough about composition and affects from the baroque era. But if i tell them the violins here are describing a thunderstorm, and the figures and orestration is written like this and that. and if they say "ah, i hear it now!". For me, that is the most valubale comment. Becuase it tells me that i have done my job good enough for the music to have meaning. :) So who are we writing music for? our fellow composers, myself, or the common ear? I write for everyone, if they enjoy my piece, im glad, if not its fine :) if only i enjoyed it, its fine too :S

Jesus christ Sojar........... Do you have to destory any initative here!?! for someone who just have started to compose piano music this is very good. Its a musical melody, even if its simple pop harmony! But that is fine is it not? I really think you have got lost in the illusion of yours Sojar, you may think you are so original and your music is so personal. But to me its sounds very much alike the mordern style, could never in my dreams hear if its one of your compositions or some of your contemporarys. So get down from you high horse, this piano music is not more stereotypical than your music..

Yes, there are some. Fernando Da Luca writes cembalo music, even they are a little later in style. Check out : http://www.voxsaeculorum.org/ The organisation includes professors and known musicologists, all specialized in contemporary baroque composition.

Hmm, i doubt you will find any! The Bach toccatas are in a mix of Buxtehude and Frescobaldi style. As for the toccata form came to from Merulo and Frescobaldi in italy, and was brought to the north german school by the south german composers Froberger! As we know Buxtehudes early works are very inspired by Frobergers toccatas, but the influence form the dutch organ school is present as well, the tradition of Sweelinck, Preatorius and Scheidemann! I dont think Bach is the composer you should check out if you are looking for multi movement works in stylus fantasticus. The toccata you refer to is also called prelude, or preambulum. A fantastic Manualiter prelude (or toccata if you want :) Handel used the theme of the second fugue in this prelude, check out "and he shall purify" movement from messias (fuge starts at 2:50) I just want to mention that Handel also used a theme by Corelli in the hallelujah chorus Quite funny, we all know Handel, but we dont know much of Buxtehude and Corelli, even if he got famous using their musical material ;)

Hi there! Very good that you want to learn to write baroque/classical. I guess the first thing you need to do is find your favorite style and practice how the musical language for that particular style is. This is a long process, to make it natural for your mind to speak in this language. What I would do is to start with just one style. do NOT start with combining french and german. Fux is a great way to learn counterpoint, but you have to practice your stylistic manner simultaneously, because the knowledge of counterpoint and harmony its just 1/3 of the cake. 1/3 Counterpoint/Harmony 1/3 Melodic language/form etc 1/3 Musical expression/affects/stylus fantasticus/etc Good luck to you!

Music and philosophy is very important. All musical styles have a philosophy, both practical and "spiritual". Practical philosophy: Is the musical language, how you use, harmony/progression, form, counterpoint, dissonances/consonance, rhythm, use of strong beats, , etc, all the practical tools of composition. stylus fantasticus for example, is another philosophy of composition; Athanasius Kircher described it this way : The fantastic style is especially suited to instruments. It is the most free and unrestrained method of composing, it is bound to nothing, neither to any words nor to a melodic subject, it was instituted to display genius and to teach the hidden design of harmony and the ingenious composition of harmonic phrases and fugues. Affects (Baroque) The tools to "paint pictures" with music, the different affects describes different thing, like chromatic passages, dotted rhythms, time signature, key signature, melodic movement, dialogues between voices. "Spiritual" philosophy: Was is the aim of music, and was is the music purpose. Its music about self-realization, God , describe nature, to bring forward the national feelings (like the use of folk tunes etc, Grieg and Chopin is very good examples for that kind of philosophy) And there is philosophy in performance: Should we use much vibrato, less vibrato, long phrasing (like linear thinking), short phrasings, articulation, legato, staccato, rubato. Every trademark of styles is philosophy, there are some styles that have more and some have less. All the subculture of "shall do, or shall not do" is philosophy, If you read Persichettis book on modern harmony, you can see how modern music has its own philosophy on dissonance and consonance. What is accepted in music is an philosophy too, many say if you write in an older style, they refer to its as pastiche, and say that the music does not represent our time, which is nothing more then a philosophy. Some say yes, and some say that methods of composition is not limited by time, nor by what era we are in (as a matter of fact, time is always moving, and when we are in the present, an era has not been made yet), another philosophy have your own mind and can choose what ever language and practical methods you want to use, because we are at the climax of musical evolution. I think every composer should be aware of the this, if a composer is not aware of hes: Practical Philosophy "Spiritual" Philosophy Performance Philosophy I think the music and its integrity is at stake, how can one write music with so little thought? Music is so much more then just notes and sound, but what all philosophies, old and present agree on is that music have to express something. But the differ in the tools, harmony, melodic construction, counterpoint, views on tonality, views on dissonance, views on what the it shall express/describe. But the goal of music an a wide sense is the same. Sadly there seem to be many that dont think of this, i read posts where people state that music and philosophy has nothing to do with each other. " i do it because i like it, or what im told to do", seems like art has become mindless. "Robo-art :(

jawoll, Herr Schnittke! amüsieren ich Ihnen?

you misunderstand me dear fellow. I what i think is good or bad, or what you think is good or bad, is ubjective, and totally irrelevant! All im saying is: Nature, when applied tension, resolves it. Dissonance IS tension, i have shown you the articles and definitione of dissonance and sound before. they are clear. So fact is : nature is a balances tension and the relif of tension, There is NEVER applied tension, and not resolved. Nature. When you breath in (you apply tension) breath out (release tension). (there is constant conflict with tension all the time, just by doing nothing) Music: when you play a note (there is tension, the soundwaves create tension). When you play tones that is close, like c and d, there is much tension, c - e ( little less tension etc) This is facts, nothing to argue here. Organic = is both, you apply tension, and release tension. this is how everything work, music too. the more notes you play, the more tension. but as we now the tones that are closer gives more tension then notes that are far. Conclution : Notes that are close (DISSONANCE) have more tensions then notes like a fifth, third etc If you want to follow the principles of nature, that we know always release tension after tension is applied, you have to RESOLVE the dissonance. This is only very logical. Then your music follows the principles of organic life. If you dont release tension, you dont follow the principles of organic life. Nature, rules of nature = NATURAL something that breaks with nature = UNNATURAL Its not about what music is best, or taste. Write what you like best. But the FACT that doing this that strives against nature, like not resolving tension IS unnatural. You say, that i say natural is best, no no no! I say natural is natural!! What you might think is best, or i does not mean scraggy. The point is that everything that is natural, usually fits better with people then things that is unnatural. Do you feel weel when you do things that is compleatly unnatural???? to eat with your hands is natural, to eat with your feet is not, but you can still eat with your feet, and even train yourself so it feels natural. Atonality is like that, its unnatural, but you learn your mind to make it natural. This is only logical, and in fact!! Logic ====== natural. And i say this once more, this has NOTHING to do with was kind of music that is best, write what you like best! a concerto for spoon, paper and radio with nosie or a concerto for flute and strings, tonal or atonal, or both at the same time, even make the music unplayt ble, use what ever philosphy you want, and express what you want. its all god! Just stop running form the fact that tension IS released in nature, and if you dont release tension you are NOT natural. To be natural, the word itself gives the expleantion, nature -> natural. So things that are natural are in accordance with nautre. You claim that nature has not music, ture! music is TENSION, when you press down the key on a piano, the hammer hits the string, the string vibrates, the sound hit the wood and you get a tone. So what is actually happen ? the string is HIT (and there is tension, but tension cant go on forever, so its resolved.) YOU applied the tension. So we created a system of tones, on natural (the overtones). Acutally is the rules of harmony buildt on that concept, which tones collide most, and give most TENSION. and who are more balanced. (there is ALWAYS tension, just one tone is tension, to tones that collide (close tones) gives MORE tension. And it does sound natural too? if you play c major: G C D (does the C lead naturally to B??) for me it does, but that again you could claim that its the system we made, alright, but music is based on the same system. tempred tuning was not made for atonality, it was made for tonality, so you can play a TONAL scale in every key, and they would sound the same. So, given that you use tempered tuning in your music, its UNNATURAL not to resolve tension. If a person have a musical ear, he/she will feel it natural to resolve leadining tones beacuse they are dependent on the tone they are leading to. If you use a new set of tuning, its still natural you resolve dissonance, BUT if you create a new tuning that is not build onu the traditional tuning and scales, you make a new system where its natrual to not resolve, but you would not be able to do that, because the tones we are used to are so stuck with us, that if you microtuned an interval, in your ear it would sound out of tune, and how do you like to play chords on a instrument out of tune? if you are not tonedeaf, i assume you dont like that very much. What happens when you tune a intrument? If you tune in octaves, its the DISSOANCE that let you know its out of tune.

And by the way, western art music sprung out from church music (gregorian some of the first written chruch music) Im soon starting to believe if i say " the world is shaped like a circle" you will say something else. Im giving facts, this is not subjective. If you want to use it or not is subjetive, but the fact is. Applied tension always resolves, the rest is nothing more then musicphilosphy, you can say, i dont think that matter, and music does not need to follow the nature, that is another philosophy. Yours to choose :) But you can never say: its natural to not resolve tension, that would be a lie.

i was refering that was written down, gregorian chants is some of the first music written down ( so we know it had a tonal center)

Not ture at all Sojar, every sound has a pitch! Why? if they had not, there would not be any soundwaves, and soundwaves is requierd to make a sound, if its a tone or just "bang" its still has a pitch. Seems like people here have given tempered tuning and intervals to much atention, the pont is not that with the tempered tuning a third is not the same third in different keys. The point is: ther iis constant tension, as long as your breathe (innhale = apply tension, exhale = release tension). When you apply tension, you have to resolve it. When you write a dissonance, you have to resolve it. A tone by it self has tension, the soundwaves tension is what makes a tone/sound. But when nature apply tension, it always resolves. Everything on the planet is based on this concept, who oxygen works, water, plants, everything. This is organic and natural. So we know that nature always resolves applyed tension, when you write music, you are king of the world, and decide when to apply tension or not. If you choose not to resolve tension, then you dont follow the organic life of this world. This has NOTHING to do with intervals, one style is better then another, tuning, etc. Nature resolves tension, when its applys it. The concept is not that baroque music is better etc,its just happens that baroque follows this concept,purpose or not,is not a discussion, it could just be because they got lucky when they figured out the system), but how they threat dissoance (tension, pressure, what ever you want to call it) its resolved. You state my point actaully. you say you where against atonality. Ofcoruse you where, everybody has been. Because atonality has to be learnd to like it, its a process that takes years. I just going to refer to my comments about how humans adapt to anything and dont repeat it. But i will once again use the example: First sigarette; the body says NO! after some years the body feels it natural, now it give yous plasure, and the body and mind has become dependent on it.(gone against your nature) First atonale piece, is not plesat, the mind says no, but after some years, you have learnd your mind to find pleasure in it. (its a process, but eventually you have gone against your nature) its not like learning to read or write. So how can i say atonal music is unnatural? Because its not, as we know cultureal and social changes our DNA, in the western world, tonality has been for 100s of years, not just the functonal harmony, but a tonal center. When you grow up, you hear tonal songs, i doubt your mother sang Modus Novus by Lars Edlund before you went to sleep. The eintre culture in westen europe from the gregorian (year 300) is based on a tonal center. That is why atonality is unnatural. Dissonance, chromatic etc is not unnatural.

Hi there! I heard a couple of your pieces, i think they had something, to tell you the truth i have heard much more lesser music by composers on this forum, who think much more highly of themself then you seem to do. As you said yourself, you are beginner, and your works give you away, which is fine, everybody have been fresh. As Sojar pointed out It would be wise to study form, counterpoint and harmony. I dont know what style you want to write, but it might be good for you to start writing in some sort of traditional style, just to get melodic phrases, structure, harmony and form in practice. composition is learning by doing, experience comes with pieces. You cant read to become experienced, you have try and fail :) that is the way we learn best. There will always be disrespectful people on a internet forum, try to look over those, and try to learn form those who review your music seriously. Good luck to you, and merry Christmas

Very nice music, to bad he did not stay with it. Something bad must have happend to that man ;) Back to my statement: Keep in mind im not telling that you should not write atonal, modern or what ever you like. Im stating that unresolved tension does not fit well with how the nature and universe works, tension is always relieved. That is not an assumption, but a fact. Im not saying that you should not write dissonances, im stating that dissonance is a tool for expression. If you have dissonance all the time, you need more dissonance to make the effect you want (like cluster). If you have a clear harmony, its very easy to hear the dissonance and then easier to know when the piece is expressing something. Im not saying you should stick to the theory of the baroque period, but im saying that some of the ideals can be used in modern music as well, the concepts. What i am stating: If music does not releave tenions, it goes against the nature of the universe. Many composers today randomly use passingnotes and dissonance without it meaing anything other then its "nice", and this is a bad thing (ofcourse there are people that use it perfectly too) Many composers have had to little training in traditional harmony to venture into atonality, you have to master the traditional writing before even thinking experimental music, and that requiers a liftime of practial use, not just exercises. Some belive if you have studied and written chorales and some counterpointlessons you understand functional harmony enough to begin with more experimental stuff. That is not true, to master traditional harmony takes YEARS of composing, not just some chorales and a quick study in counterpoint. I have met masterstudents in composition who cant even write a short chorale line without errors. traditional composition is much like traditional painting, you cant expect to be a good figurative painter after a couple of years practing to paint a human hand. it take years to master, and even at the end of ones life, you still could get better. Why do i say use dissonance and chromatic wisely? Because the effect of it will be grater as an expression. The only tools we have as composers is: rhythm, melody and harmony. that is the core. Everything you hear has a rhythm (because it ends) Everything you hear has a pitch (need two notes, to have a melody) Every melody you hear has harmony. There are ofcourse other things like form,tempo, key, timesignature. etc that is vital for a composition, but lets keep it simple. If you overuse this tools true a piece, much chromatic, dissonances most of the time (polychords), and advanced rhythm, how can a listener hear when you express the serious stuff? The only solution is adding more dissonance, or more chromatic. Expression can also be used by imitation, like violin 1 and 2 are playing seperate, and then together, this could be used for much, have used it to symbolice the renunion with God, first the voices are searching for each other, and then they come togheter (usually at cadece). here its perfect to add dissonace. But if i had dissoance all the time? then i could not use that tool to really try to get the listener to focus on this section. To much dissonance is chaos Why do i say its so imporant to be organic? Its the same as playing music, what do we strive after when we are performing music? to be organic, breath, take time, move forward, move backward etc. But the music itself is organic, becuase the composers had that im mind. (talking about baroque now) but this is related to all kind of music. What makes a beautiful performance? the organic performece! We strive to communicate with the listener, have a conversation, not with words, but music as a tool to ignite feelings. Is a rock organic? no its not. is the waves organic? yes they are. How? They move, they release tension. No we are back to my fist statement, music should be organic, and therfor tension have to be resolved, no living thing does not resolve tension, in fact life is a balance of tension and resolved tension. Music is organic, it breaths, it moves. This is why i mean music should follow the rules of physics and the universe, because the medium that music is, is comunication with living people, not with a dead rock. Merry Christmas to you all

Favorite modern piece maybe, dont confuse that with" listening to the piece" when i want to release tension. Sorry it was from a modern point of view, compared to earlier music, sorry to say, your Ave maris stella sounds like the other modern choir pieces. And as you know, is not the kind of music or philosophy i prefer I think all of you should give it a thought : dissonanse = tension = tension should be resolved, or used for making movement. A restless chord is not in balance. First quote: Exactly, music was not created by nature, its made by man, as well is the instrument, just a tone is not music, nor is two tones. The definition of music is wider. That is WHY we should heed how the nature works and be organic, and not go against on the principles we are born and die of this world. Music is made by man for the expression of feelings, instruments, rythem, melody, harmony is just tools. So my statement is: if you keep stick to the rules of the universe, and use it in music, i think the music will be much more clear, and have a deep impact. Randomly adding chromatic and passing tones is not very art. Second quote: Yes! True, too bad, as believe Gods is present composition, the experimental atonal stuff i more satanic in my ears. It actually scare the living hell out of me. I cant understand how composers can accept that as composition, know that it sounds random, and im starting to believe its those composers who cant, who do it. A skilled figurative painter would rarely change to painting a red line on a white background. Why? Well, i guess they feel the art loses its integrity, same with composition. But never mind, my posts, accept why im stating or you dont :)