camaysar

At issue is the phrase "tell the listener something." How about "make the listener feel something"? I don't see how a composer can write a piece and not have in mind the effect he wishes to elicit in his hearers. Certainly most composers have in mind the effect their music produces in themselves, in their creative heads. Of course, responses will be subtly personal. With time, this idea becomes more free. In aleatoric music, obviously the performer becomes a composer, and alters the specific message drastically. But the overall effect is determined by the composer. Even John Cage, in 4'33", had an overall expectation for his audience (though the first performance must have been the "greatest", as the secret has long been out, and the realization of the piece has evolved). I find myself comparing music to food. Is gastronomy a language? Don't tastes produce in the brain subtle effects which are a direct result of the glops in our mouths, as music produces subtle effects far removed from the vibrations themselves (which are "physical" rather than "emotional")? The question is ultimately, "What is language"? Now I do see the following as a possibility (in my unwieldy Webster's New International of 1926): "2. Any means of communicating feeling or thought. In the usual sense, language means a system of conventionalized signs; that is, words or gestures having fixed meaning. But not all intelligible expressions are fixed, nor are all used for communication, since language plays a large role in our thinking processes. Hence, language may mean (1) expression that conveys ideas. Bodily expression, writing, etc, are its chief forms, but any systematic symbolism, in a more or less transferred sense, is called language, as, the language of art." I believe the key words here are conventionalized and systematic. Which may lead to your next comment: When you say "specific" and apply it to a Schubert song, do you mean like "this makes the listener visualize an Erlking chasing a child on horseback"? You are actually speaking of "program music", right? I would have to agree. But I am suggesting that yes, a Bach Fugue or serial piece (which have a lot in common!) are also intended to produce non-literary specific responses, that is... the "brain activity" we feel as emotion. When the dictionary says "the language of art", what does that mean? Does it refer to representative art? Possibly. But absolute music is conventionalized only so far. We can describe some as "lovely", or "strong", or "delicate", even "triumphant" or "tragic". Is that enough to make it a language? Maybe not. As I mentioned, we can describe the taste of foods in general terms, and we can safely call gastronomy an art. But it somehow seems like a stretch to call it a language. Is music then merely a sort of "cooking with sound?". I don't doubt that composers as well as cooks seek to reproduce in others the sensations they experience as a result of concocting their recipes, be they made up of ingredients or vibrations. But perhaps there is insufficient conventionalized symbolism to make it a language. It all seems like a bit of a grey area, and is ultimately a question of semantics (obviously!). Yes, quite so. Literature is the art of language, symbols, while music is the art of sound, which may not be symbols at all, but merely catalysts. I may end up deferring to you here. Oh my... I've got to run!

Well, Gardener, when a composer writes a piece, he has a "meaning" that he wishes to communicate. He wants to share this with the listener.. that is, the "emotions, ideas, connections" you mentioned in your post. He wants to elicit specific responses no more or less than an author working with words. Remember, there are two sides to any language, to any communication. Ideally, composer and listener should have the same general meaning in mind, as with the "communicator and communicatee" in any language, be it a language of symbols or language of feeling (art). Of course, beautiful writing (poetry, literature) can be both. Some listeners do not understand the composer's language; their brains do not operate at his frequency, and they will dislike his music. I think this, like personality, or any taste really, results from a combination of "nature and nurture". As for the "autistic" element you mention, is there a more intimate experience than listening to music in the privacy of our individual brains? Isn't that what music is supposed to do... to reach into our deepest parts? Is it not similar to reading a book, where the reader creates the intended images in his own mind, and in his own way? But music, pure music, by definition, is not generally concerned with anything but itself, so we do not receive a message based on mundane human experience. We receive pure emotion... the musical message... and we receive it in our own way. I don't think two people can hear a single piece of music in exactly the same way. So, as you suggest, the precise message is formed at the listening stage, whatever the intentions of the composer. After a point, the composer is really just another listener! This may be a distinguishing feature of Art in general... the personalization of the message, as opposed to utilitarian verbal language. "Meet me at the train station at 3 pm" can mean only one thing. I'm not sure I could say that about any given piece of absolute music... or even any poem! But that does not make it any less a language.

We might say that music is the language of our musical sensibilities. It is the specific mix of vibrations that elicits a brain response, which is the true "meaning" of the music, just as words elicit their intended image-response. We could also agree that music notation is certainly a language, the meaning of which is the music it represents.

To answer your question, Melville: Most composers of my generation began in their early years by learning a few important areas: Melodic dictation. That is, learning to write the melodies you hear. You say you've been playing piano for 10 years, and know basic note values. That's great. I would suggest writing from simple folk melodies, or Bach Chorale melodies. You can play sections of melody over and over until you get it all. Then check against the written music. Pick any key. Of course you would need sound recordings and printed music to check your work. Try writing out "Happy Birthday" (but don't play it in public). And conversely... learn to sight-sing.. a very important skill! You can also compose simple melodies and write them, using the knowledge you have acquired from your piano studies. The learning process does not mean composing your dream compositions and notating them. Learning includes a healthy dose of exercises, just to familiarize yourself with the language... like playing scales on the piano to prepare for playing "real music". Simple keyboard harmony. That is, learning standard chord progressions and the functions certain chords have in the harmonic scheme. We then went on to study species counterpoint, and harmonic analysis (beginning with Bach Chorales and progressing from there), including inversions and non-chord tones, etc. etc. Anything after these studies can be considered college level. However, I definitely would say that a real live teacher is worth more than 1000 books!! Most concise and best advice.. Research music schools in your area and get a teacher! Books alone are not a good way to begin. Good luck!

Let me just go on record as being a lover of certain types of pop music, including the Rolling Stones... especially early ("Aftermath" album). Is Blues Pop? Love Blues (Howlin' Wolf, Lightnin' Hopkins, Blind Willie Johnson, John Hammond Jr., etc etc etc). This music does not seem to adversely affect my classical listening. There does happen to be one kind of music I do detest... Merengue as played today in the Dominican Republic. Same 2 chords hammered away ad naus. I think of it as music for drunk people (no, this is not a general comment on the wonderful Dominican people!). As a frequent visitor to the DR, the loud, inescapable Merengue has ruined many a fine beach day. So I can relate to your feelings... that is, I know what it is to viscerally "hate" a certain type of music. Yes, it is tempting to allow this negativity to lead to a judgement upon those who love Merengue... I guess they are just in touch with their primitive selves... much like lovers of certain repetitive ethnic rhythm music. But I'll take African drumming over Merengue any day! There are many classical musicians who unapologetically love certain varieties of pop (I don't think anyone loves ALL pop, just as no one loves all classical. I can live without Padre Antonio Soler, and Bruckner, to name a couple.) I hear genius in my preferred Pop and Blues artists to the same degree I do in classical artists. Not because of structure or any other technical aspect. Simply because their work provides a totally absorbing musical experience. There seem to be a lot of arguments relating to "taste" here, and it just cannot be quantified. It is expected that young people would discuss this, as their taste is still being formed, and new discoveries can elicit passionate bias, positive and negative, along with the urge to convince others. But with experience, we learn that we cannot deny the subjectivity of Art. One might simply declare, "I hate Pop music!" and leave it at that. I mention "the same 2 chords" in relation to Merengue. But it is conceivable that there may be another type of music that utilises "the same 2 chords" in a manner I would find utterly enchanting. I just happen to... well... hate Merengue with a purple passion! But you are permitted to love it... I wish I did!

With all respect, one should not presume to know how music affects others. Schoenberg, Berg and Webern are listened to with pleasure by many. Only one person can judge the quality of music... the person listening to it.

Well, it's a bit more complicated. Zentari, you no doubt refer to the letter where Chopin says he wishes he could steal the way Liszt was playing Chopin's etudes at the moment (and of course op. 10 is dedicated to Liszt). Chopin certainly admired Liszt's playing, just like the rest of the world, and was struck by the same deep musicianship and all-around ability, including phenomenal sight-reading. He read Grieg's concerto from the manuscript, and made corrections to the notation as well! Liszt's sight-reading of Grieg's Violin Sonata was even more amazing, and caused Grieg to laugh out loud as Liszt played it. Chopin's burst of admiration occurred very early in their relationship. Chopin later criticized Liszt for always tampering with his music, and mentioned that if he couldn't play the music as written, then he shouldn't play it at all. Chopin and Liszt had a complex, unsettled relationship, for various reasons, not purely musical. But there is no doubt that Chopin saw things in Liszt's playing he wished he had as well... such as the ability to please large crowds, and to flourish in the spotlight, though he sneered at Liszt's popularity, in Chopinesque manner. Liszt's hands were much larger than Chopin's. It is said that Chopin always admired that quality in other pianists, physical strength included. Chopin was a famous "pianissimist". Liszt's range was therefore greater than Chopin's, more reason to declare Liszt the greater pianist. By the way, Liszt is said to have been inspired to expand his technical resources after hearing Paganini in Paris. But Liszt had already heard Chopin before he heard Paganini, and Moriz Rosenthal suggests that it was actually hearing Chopin that inspired his progress. You can see metal casts of Chopin's and Liszt's hands on the web. Both are beautiful piano hands.

A bit off-topic, but... this thread, concerning individual taste, reminds me of a book by Stravinsky, called "The Poetics of Music". In it, he states that birdsongs are not music, as birds do not mean to create music through their warblings. How he knows this, I'm not sure. (Of course, one may observe, birdsongs are just as "natural" as the harmonic series, while not utilising it, to my knowledge.) But isn't music really in the perception? Doesn't the listener create the music when his brain makes sense of sounds and hears them as music? This is why one cannot objectively judge, or even define music. Street sounds can be noise to one person, and music to another. Cage was right: "It's music if you think it's music!" Ok... getting back to the dishes now......

Hi SimenN, You seem to have a certain feel for 2-part writing. Your immediate inspiration seems to be the C sharp major Prelude from Book 1 of the WTC. However, I think you need to be more aware of, and free with, your harmonic movement. I like your modulation to the V at :19. But then, despite some sequence activity, the harmony remains fairly static until you suddenly jump back to the C tonic at :48. The problem is that you have not really presented the G (the V of C, to which you modulated) as dominant functioning, so it sounds like a tonic-to-tonic. At least back at :18, just before you moved to G, you had one fleeting beat of a D-based implied harmony, which functioned as the secondary dominant and led naturally to your G... just as Bach does on D sharp before the C sharp prelude moves to G sharp (where the left hand first takes the sixteenths). Your prelude is static again until you suddenly adopt the vi (a minor) as a new tonic, via a weak V6 to vi cadence. All these key changes should be better set up, rather than jumped to. The augmented chord on E resolving to d minor (at 1:09) is made more awkward by your jumping up a seventh in the bass, from E to D. Your arrival in C at 1:46 is a "non-arrival", as it was not really set up. Look what Bach does after he reaches G sharp. He again uses a fleeting secondary dominant on A sharp and moves to d sharp minor. Then he does it AGAIN on e sharp and moves to a sharp minor! Meanwhile, he has not altered the music (theme-wise) at all since the first 8 measures!! But he's not through yet... while utilising only the closing melodic material of his theme, he telescopes his harmonic movement and moves to B sharp, which is another major second shift (to secondary dominant), then resolves to e sharp minor after only one measure, then resolves that after another single measure to dominant functioning A sharp, then one more measure to d sharp.... etc etc etc. There is much more to observe in this wonderful Bach prelude that seems to have inspired you , so while you may yet be "nothing compared to Bach", you can have him as your teacher! Your fugue opens with a nice subject, with the slow "mordent" motive, followed by the turning sixteenth notes. But I'm not sure if the higher mordent statement that closely follows is part of the first voice exposition, or second voice. I hear no distinctive countersubject. In other words, the material is not presented clearly, if this is not my fault as a listener, which may be the case! Then you soon abandon the part writing for the main part of the fugue. This is a discipline that requires a mastery of the harmonic implications of melody. Better to meet the challenge than avoid it! As I mentioned, you have a very nice feeling for 2-part movement. Keep at it, and expand your theoretical background so you can make good use of your gifts!

Good one, Michel. He also apparently said, "Any musician who has not experienced

The question is not whether or not you build on the past. The question is how you build on the past. Every well-informed composer builds on the past, as surely as today builds on yesterday.

Wow... 2 small comments. We have to assume that composers (certainly composers of stature) want to create beautiful music, however they may choose to do it. Carter won 2 Pulitzer prizes... often awarded for some pretty conservative music! He is a genuine composer. Had he begun by writing jarringly atonal music in his childhood, we might suspect him. But he went through a development, an expansion of his concept of beauty, no different than Beethoven, or more strikingly, Schoenberg. Could the composer of Verklaerte Nacht suddenly decide that beauty of sound does not matter? Could the composer of Carter's First Symphony? Of course not. To dislike the music of this or that composer is natural, but to question the motives of a true composer is not worthwhile. We need not question a composer's goal... to produce beauty for whoever can receive it. I well remember an early moment of illumination experienced through Carter's music. I was listening to his Piano Concerto and thought, "You know, this is not some big bad boy writing 'difficult' music... it's just beautiful sounds." As for great composers not writing for the public, I would say that is not at all true. Bach wrote all his vocal music for the public, while not compromising his genius. Mozart wrote some of his greatest concertos for the public, so much so that when he deviated from this, he pointed it out in letters, saying that he wrote for "connoisseurs". Of course, many composers wrote differently for the (ignorant) public (think early 19th century England)... generally their worst music!

Pleasant little piece, Ascold, with a lurking Brahmsian quality - hemiola and.... a subconscious reference to the last movement of the Violin Concerto in mss 3 and 4 before the end? One or two suggestions. Your notation goes against what the ear perceives (as well as being a bit awkward in the beat divisions). The ear hears 6/8, or even 12/8 (with necessary adjustments), but definitely eighth note motion, divided according to a duple triplet structure (in 6/8 that would be 2 groups of 3). To what does the "staccato" refer in ms 1? Only the first chord? You continue with slurs, which conflicts with staccato. Choose which notes you want staccato and mark them with staccato points. Also, we don't hear your indicated dynamics or the ritard before the first double bar. Do you really want them? The harmonies don't travel far, and the motive is rather basic, but this doesn't bother, as the momentum carries the piece. I'd like to hear a key change at the double bar. After all, your title says "tale", so we may expect a bit more of a journey, even if in miniature. Measure 6 after the double bar sounds a bit weak. Give it a closer listen and see if you can make it fit better (or not, if you are happy with what you have, of course!). Mss. 9-13 after the double bar are nice and "swingy". Are you aware that you play (or notated) a wrong note (in the repeat as well) in the third measure after the double bar? You play G in the upper voice of the third RH eighth note instead of F sharp. Your last chord rises up from the depths of the piano, and is rather difficult. If you don't want to bring the left hand up an octave, at least think about deleting the octave skip in the left hand, or don't roll it at all and end with an "Alkan slap" (just play solid chords in the lower and upper octaves you have written... semi-staccato, accented and unpedaled.) How about adding some more movements of similar scale?

Hi, Granted, there are likely players today who have equal or greater technical mastery, considering the advances of technical expectations since Scarlatti's time. And admittedly, no one has heard every single harpsichordist in history. But Scarlatti's music tells us in no uncertain terms that he was by far the most virtuosic in his writing for his or any other time. We assume he could play his sonatas perfectly. Bear in mind that "virtuosic" is an approach, not only a physical characteristic. No one to my knowledge has approached composition for the harpsichord in such a manner, so continuously, since Scarlatti. Surely not the likes of Vincent Persichetti or even Poulenc. And no classicist outdid him, during the harpsichord's last period. His sonatas are often written almost as etudes, with athleticism a primary concern, while maintaining a solid structure and intellectual control. Bach, for example, may have difficult passages, and some of his preludes in the WTC are etude-like. But he never utilised the keyboard(s) as extensively as Scarlatti. Ditto for Handel, whose "Harmonious Blacksmith" variations (a form which normally showcases virtuosity) are quite simple to perform. We also have ear-witness accounts of his playing, including an alleged victory over Handel in a harpsichord duel (Handel is said to have won in the organ-playing contest). Scarlatti, like Chopin, set new boundaries in keyboard technique, and he must have been an incredible technician (as well as his long-time pupil Maria Barbara, if she could handle his works!). Do Kirkpatrick, Landowska, Valenti, Leonhardt, Pinnock, etc. play as well as Scarlatti? Probably. But none of them deserves to be called the most virtuosic, in the wider sense, as they are only players.