Nosferatu

So I looked and listened to some classical piano music. I listened and followed along with this piano score. In the book it had the day's top piano composers. I listened to every single one of those pieces and it all made no sense...no sense of innovation or originality. IT WAS SERIOUSLY THE WORSE THING I'VE EVER HEARD. What really got me was the fact that the compositions were supposedly written by the day's best composers...which is nonsense. I hate this "music" that sounds like a conglomerate mess of scales and arppegios. I sat down on my piano bench and played a bunch of scales...and what you do you know?!? IT SOUNDED JUST LIKE THE CD I JUST LISTENED TO! The exact same thing you said can be applied to your "common practice" music with just a few words rewritten. Of course, what I said above is completely unjustified and over simplifies an entire era of music and doesn't do it justice. Similarly, what you said about contemporary piano music doesn't do it justice and only shows that you are ignorant about the genre.

By melodic, I mean say an instrument like the french horn playing a melody where he jumps the chosen interval. By chordal, I mean both notes being played at the same time by say a keyboard instrument. What's your favorite interval? Mine is the major sixth in both cases; it always sends chills down my spine for some reason.

I like what you have so far; I think you accomplish the feel you wanted very well. But perhaps I can add some more chords to your "weird vocabulary?" First, the augmented sixth chord (particularly the french one) is a wonderful addition to any "weird" sound. You start on any key, go up a major third, up a major second, then another major third. The whole tone scale is a wonderful technique as well. Start on any key and play a scale, but ONLY go up by whole steps. The interesting thing about the whole tone scale is that any of the notes played together will sound "right." Also, explore usage of major seconds played simultaneously or perhaps adding some ninths and 11ths and thirteenths into your chords.

To be completely honest, I didn't care for it. As an earlier poster put it, some of the meter changes don't make sense and seem to be randomly chosen. The harmony, while a little more "contemporary," didn't seem well thought out. Example: measure 6, the baritione goes "G D G" while the alto and soprano hold an F and a C. It's a fifth based chord but it doesn't fit well into the context around it. Your fourth second minor third motif that repeats itself in various places doesn't reall appeal to me, but that's just my personal preference. The "Take my moments" section is VERY repetitive, both textually, ryhtymically, and harmonically. The baritone sings "take my moments" on the same pitch in a hard to follow rythym while the soprano and alto occasionally accent the "moments." The ear quickly grows tired of hearing it and it becomes very mundane. My main beef with it is it's VERY interval based and I'm not a big fan of that style of composition. Also, the constant meter changes bug me not because I hate meter changes (I love them, actually) but the way you used them here doesn't make sense; it seems like you changed meter for the sake of changing meter, not because it fits what you wrote.

As many other posters have pointed out, it's basically a mishmosh of chords strung together. On my first listen through, there wasn't much to follow melody wise, and since it lacked a melody, it also lacked a counter melody. Even your chords were a bit muddy because of unneccesary or excessive suspensions. For example, around 20 seconds in when the strings come in, the suspension eight notes played by what soudns like a viola and cello don't mix; the cello plays Bflat A G F, and the viola plays d c c b flat against a series of G minor chords. Other sections like this are also unclear. Also, your faster rythyms overuse the scale technique and the ear quickly tires of the sound. When the scale sixteenths and thirty seconds aren't being played, we're left with only quarters and eight note chord progressions plagued with the problems I listed above. My suggestion is to rework it. As it stands, there's no discernable theme to it. Certain chord progressions are over used (specifically the deceptive cadence and the ever popular V-I), as are the rythyms (straight quarters, straight eighths, or sixteenths.) The intervals used in a lot of your instrumental parts are bizzare and don't make sense. Overall, it sounds too much like the same old and it sounds "nice" but it's boring. You need to use something new to make your requiem stand out; as of now, it sounds very very generic.

-Sigh- This is one of the things I hate most about this forum. All the guy said is that he's renowed in his SCHOOL for being a good composer. He never said he was the best composer in the world; it was slightly arrogant but not as bad as you guys are blowing it up to be. And you aren't much better; chiding him for being arrogant is one thing, but completely stepping out of the bounds of respect is NOT a very good thing to do. And Nico, you didn't even REMOTELY try to be nice. "OMG I WON THE REFLECTIONS WHEN I WAS IN THE SECOND GRADE" isn't constructive at all.

What you have is good; very good. Elegant and simple. But it's not a true minuet, at least not in the exact term. You need a second section; a refrain if you will. Your piece is obviously in baroque style, so you should definitely go look at any Bach minuets you own; you'll notice quickly that they all follow a similar form. Emulate this form in your composition and go from there.

I think you completely missed his point. The advice he gives you is VERY VERY good, all of it; and likely the best advice you'll ever get on this board. The "Is it something you enjoy" is perhaps the most important question of all. Self criticism is always the best criticism because you're being BLUNTLY honest with yourself. The biggest period of my own musical stagnation was when I thought I was really really good. Then, I heard Debussey's music, Stravinsky's music, and also other composers my age music and it completely knocked my head off and changed my little smug attitude. Immediately I began to find ways to make my music more interesting, constantly asking myself "do I truely like this, or am I just writing a measure to get it done?" The most important thing is to get your music to the point where people actually want to take time out of their lives and listen to your music on their own accord. Perhaps a better phrasing of the question would be "If I had not written this piece, would I take time out of my life to listen to it?" Once the answer to that is honestly, truely "Yes," then it will likely start applying to other people as well. That said, I'm not saying your an egotist. I don't really know you so I have no grounds to make such a claim. What I am saying, along with howitzer, is that no matter what other people say, honest self criticism i your most powerful weapon; use it.

My main complaint is that it's too bland- harmonically and rythymically. It sounds like you're trying to write in classical style, which rules out things like chromaticism to create tension; You occasionally use neopolitan sixth chords to good effect, which is good, but everything else looks like it's right out of the normal scale chords. Perhaps you should try some augmented sixths, or some leading tone chords, using a major chord where it's normally a minor in G major; I forget the technical term (for example, using an A major chord to transition into a D minor chord, the D minor being natural to the G scale). Overall, the piece (at least the first movement, all I've listened to so far) is too dry. The best part in the entire first movement is measure 20; that chord progression is very powerful. The rest of the piece lacks that kind of power and emotion. Rythymic variation would be nice. Quarter notes and half notes are overused. For example, the string motif around measure 27 is straight quarternotes and it's not too interesting. Also, the oboe solo seems a little out of place. Also, dynamics! You've added in a few articuclations, but you haven't added any dynamics at all. Dynamic contrast would make it more interesting. Overall, it's a decent piece of work but it needs some contrast. It's too much of the same thing: Chord progression, scale, another chord progression, scale stuff, etc.

Sometimes, the guttural, loud, edgy sound is what the composer is going for. "Pedal tones" (low b flat below the staff and lower) are very effective in this effect. It is VERY difficult to play anything technical in this range, however, so sustained notes are best.

I'm going to add notes about tenor horns with F attachments and bass trombones, and other generic notes. Trombones with F attachments have no difficulty with 1-7 slide transitions because the trigger, when pressed, effectively "extends" the slide for you without moving it. For example, a low c (normally played in 6th position) can be played in 1st with trigger, and a low b (normally in 7th position) can be played in trigger 2. A trombone with an F attachment trades a bit more difficulty in the higher register with access to lower notes a normal trombone can't handle. The range between the E below the bass staf and the pedal notes (really low B flat, A, A Flat, G) can be reached with a few exceptions. The low D Flat, C, and B natural are all difficult to hit without the extra trigger the bass trombone provides, but the E, E flat, and D natural can all be reached using the trigger. A bass trombone sacrafices even more of the upper range flexibiltiy (although a good bass tromobonist can still get pretty darn high) for better tone in the low register and access to notes a normal or F attachment tenor cannot reach. The D Flat, C, and B natural notes below the staff are accesible by combining combinations of both triggers. The bass trombone is best known for its ability to absolutely dominate the sound of an orchestra, possibly only overpowered by the bass drum or timpani. It can produce a soft mellow sound or a very, very, very loud, furious, harsh, edgy, "chainsaw" tone. A quick note. While the D on the second line of the treble clef line is the "accepted" maximum range, very very good players can get much, much, much higher, with the ability to play the entire range of the piano. Writing in these extremes is only advisable for very difficult literature, solos, or specific performers.

Piano: Claire De Lune by Debussy Reverie, also by Debussy Bear Dance by Bela Bartok Trombone: David (pronounced Daveed) Trombone concerto

Listed in the order of how well I play them: Trombone Piano Euphonium Doublebass Cello

Criticism accepted, and honestly, quite true. I've listened to the piece again at around 80 beats per minute, which I like better than the 60 I had it at earlier.

As far as middle school music goes... Celtic Ritual Great Locomotive Chase Lament and Tribal Dances Collonial Collage For college/high school literature... Incantation and Dance October To Tame the Perilous Skies The Planets Holst's Suite in F and E flat