PsychWardMike

First off: I like it. Second off: It sounds a bit too baroque. I get the idea of doing something in the vein of Handel or Bach, but they've been dead for centuries. Their counterpoint is their own and I think that while a neo baroque style is a great thing for a composer to go through (I've been there for a while now) it's important to realize that that we're not in the 1700s any more and that there are many many different harmonic textures one can apply to create a fresher piece. Your orchestration seems to be pretty well handled, but if you expect to perform this with anything less than a good college ensemble, all of the high a's and b's you have written for the soprano around measure 61 and onwards are going to give you a whole peck of trouble of them being able to hit it in tune and with the proper phrasing. This problem also carries through when you're thinking of the line they are singing: in this style (though admittedly I'm drawing from some principals of Renaissance counterpoint) it's better to have one "peak" note for the sake of the drama of the line. The high a is a gorgeous note when done well and can really sell the climax of the piece, but if you keep hovering around it and coming back to it, it really loses a lot of its power. Again, I liked the piece, but these are just my own two cents.

Alright, so lots of coffee, Diet Pepsi Max , chocolate covered espresso beans, and an entire pack of cigarettes later this is done. I finished the entire movement (editing and all) in about thirteen hours. The score and parts are now in the hands of the musicians and on the 18th they will read it. Woo! Also here is the completed score for my first string quartet: "Kinetics." I'm kicking around letting it be a standalone piece and also kicking around doing a more serene first movement (with the somewhat obvious title "Potential.") Any thoughts would be well received and muchly appreciated. (Also, could we get this moved into Chamber ensembles?) kinetics string quartet.mus kinetics string quartet.mid

My school is having string quartet readings soon. Scores are due today (Tuesday, Feb. 3) at 5. I started writing this last night. I haven't shown it to anyone yet and I haven't really edited, but I was hoping that I could get some feedback as to whether or not you guys think this is even worth my continued effort and me turning it in. Thanks! string quartet.mus

I like Leo Balada an awful lot. And an obligatory shout out to Nancy Galbraith (hooray my professors!) On a more national scale (though they both get a fair bit of play) I like John Adams, Michael Daugherty, Jennifer Higdon and Christopher Theofanidis. I think the common bond is a good knowledge of how to combine consonance and dissonance as well as their expert use of the orchestra. I'm really not a fan of Corigliano's music, though. No, it's not because he's "unchallenging" (bee tea dubs, pretentious much, Ex?) but because I think he has some interesting formal ideas but very little in the way of interesting content. Also, he's kind of a jackass.

It wouldn't. It's just a roll.

Because just as the 2nd Viennese school outgrew tonality, we outgrew atonality. Granted one shouldn't write in the style of Brahms or Mozart anymore (though if you can really write like Brahms, maybe you should) but everything's been done. Major, minor, modes, tone rows, penta- hexa- octo-tonic, whole tones, microtones. It's all been done. It's just a matter of arranging the notes pleasantly and appropriately. Major and minor tonalities can work to this end.

Upon further reflection, I completely agree with your comments about the ending. Initially I thought to keep it intentionally abrupt, even disappointing, but I don't think that that fits with what this piece is doing. I rarely make apologies for my music, but this was a one shot endeavor, completed over the course of about three hours in the very early morning and that idea sounded much better at the time. Insofar as your comment about a "full score" versus what I have, however, I'm a bit puzzled. The aim of this piece is minimalist, heavily borrowed from Riley's "In C" (so much so that the title of the piece, for those concerned is "In 3") The order in which the lines change, how long each section is dwelled upon, even, to a lesser extent, how to follow the dynamic markings (in a micro versus macro idea) is up to the conductor and performers, and I think that writing the whole thing out goes against those ideas. Perhaps this isn't the best way to do it, but I suppose my main issue in creating a score that looks like "In C" (pictured here) is that I'm looking to write a series of short waltzes for orchestra, and I want this, as well as my orchestrations, included versus "In C" which can be played by any ensemble of instruments. Anyway, I really appreciate the comments (though why would measure 29's roll need two timpani?) and look forward to more of your thoughts. Thanks!

I associate a very few keys with colors. E flat Major is my green key D Major is my red key D dorian is my white key (mode, I know) G minor is my black key and that's about it. There are some vague notions of color other places, but nothing palpable enough to write about.

If you're a bassoonist and a composer, you'd do well to take a look at Carnegie Mellon University (my alma mater.) Great teachers in both as well as lots of performance opportunities and a top notch symphony.

They're not bad, but they lack a lot of power and polish. As these lyrics stand right now they conjure Nickelback and Creed images, a sort of bland rock-noise. The lyrics seem a like a bunch of generic phrases put together without a driving rhythm and interesting language to back it up. Now I'm not saying that one needs to be Shakespeare for simple song lyrics, but if you're going for some of the deeper subjects that plague humanity (religion, inequality, the stress between "morals" and "hedonism) you have a rich well to draw from and you're only skimming the surface. Maybe some allusions or metaphors could color your language and a strong driving rhythm (perhaps propagated by alliteration?) could give your poem energy.

Hi all. I was recently assigned in my orchestration class to write two waltzes, one in the style of Johannes Strauss and the other in a modern style. They generally aren't very long, but I really got caught up in writing this piece, putting it together in only a few hours. A little backstory: I've been listening to a lot of Terry Riley, Steve Reich, John Adams, and Sujan Stevens, so minimalism is the game here and though the midi file (pardon the basic finale midi... I'm on school computers while mine is in the shop) plays each change 4 times, it should be noted that in a performance, each two bar section would ideally be played more and the changes in the instruments would not happen all together, but gradually. Of course if someone wanted to simply play everything twice with each change happening as it occurs in the music, that would be fine. This piece borrows heavily from "In C." Anyway, feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks! -Mike contemporary waltz.mus contemporary waltz.mid

Higdon came to my school recently. She's great, really personable and fun. She and the trio Time for Three did excerpts from her Concerto 4-3 and it was really astounding. If you have the means, I'd highly recommend giving it a listen. Fun story, I was immensely impressed by the piece and, having just recently turned 21, asked her if I could take her out for a drink. She said "Sorry, I'm busy, but when you apply to Curtiss, definitely." I'm honestly not sure if I'm good enough to get in, and she's never heard any of my stuff, but hey, she told me to apply. Woo!

There are definately some gems in this. I think you show a remarkable knowledge of rhythm (in the bars that aren't straight quarter notes) and in one of your measures, you seem to almost stumble across some minimalist development. I'd keep at it if I were you. Maybe flesh out some of the accompaniment to make it more interesting, but on the whole it was a fine first out!

No offense taken, but one should remember that composers - in fact, many artists and even great thinkers in science and other fields - throughout history have self medicated, be it by drink, potent smokables, or other chemiclas. Taken responsibly, mind altering chemicals can be extremely helpful. Of course there is risk - there's always risk - but that's something one would have to calculate for one's self.

While I do agree that competitions and deadlines are extremely helpful, I would also point out that you should probably train yourself to compose for a certain period of time per day, or to crank out a certain number of measures per day. Remember that not every piece you write will be your masterwork: even if you write a particularly lackluster piece, you'll still have had the experience of working through tough times and you'll come out the other side a better composer (and hopefully there will be some germs in the piece that you really do like which can be jacked for future pieces.) This will also reinforce good habbits; poets write every day because the simple experience of writing is like a workout, it keeps the brain nimble and strong. Composers should learn from this. As for your complaints of a sort of composition ADD, I'd reccomend trying new techniques. Write in a completely different style than you're used to, try a different form or ensemble. The sheer novelty of doing something out of the ordinary should help keep your interest. That failing, try aderol. It's a truly miraculous drug that lets you see in, out, and around your piece and really keeps you from getting distracted. Aderol has saved me more than a few times the day before a lesson.