S.J. OK!

As you've already said, the word means difficult (if not impossible) to play. It usually also means piano writing which makes effective use of it's powers and abilities. A piano is able to create immense power but it helps if the piece falls nicely under the fingers. By that I mean piano writing which doesn't force the pianist to loads and laods of massive jumps (some massive jumps are fine but it is difficult to do). Also when playing a group of notes, arpeggios, chords, etc. it helps if the hand doesn't have to change it's shape. This is very important when writing fast piano music. I guess it's going to be pretty hard to write well for the piano without playing it or understanding it. I said before that it's probably a good idea to arrange it for two pianos. I think actually it's better if you try and cut back what you have. You have some chords that are impossible to play (a pianist only has ten fingers!) but chords with that many notes rarely sound good anyway in such a fast piece. Let's say for example that you have a chord C E G B C E. This is impossible for most people to play without spreading the chord (playing one note after another very quickly - I doubt spreading is possible in this piece because the tempo is so fast). Instead you could try E B, B E, C B or any combination that doesn't involve an interval bigger than a 10th. This is all I can think of at the moment. It's 1:30 in the morning right now and I'm really tired. Hopefully other people will be able to help as well. There really is loads to learn about piano writing (or writing for any instrument). Good luck, though. It'd be a waste if you gave up now 'cos you do have something good there.

After looking at the score there are some parts where not only do you need to be super fast you also need to have super big hands to play. Arranging it for two pianos is a good idea and it makes it much more likely that someone would want to play it. Bars 37 to 44 are impossible to play (bar 42 WOAH!!!). Most hands can reach 11-16 semi-tones. Somewhere in-between is the average hand-span for most people.

I thought bar 13 was going to be the start of an intense and exploding passage with the violins but it just stops by bar 20 and the piano is on it's own again. I also felt the repeat was not needed. I did like the harmonies but, as was said before, it lacked some direction. Your description of what you wanted to do with the piece is interesting and I think that it could turn out to be something amazing if done well. I understand that you're still in the middle of composing this piece so I'm not going to slag you off and say "it's rubbish!". I think that it still needs work. Up to about bar 20 I liked. After that it just drifts off somewhere and it fails to hold attention.

Usually I would agree with your first point but the competition is to simply create some music for a clip. Making the most of all the instruments and being an effective orchestrator isn't really part of it and I rather like the flute playing the low parts anyway. :D The only reason why I marked every note staccato was because the MIDI plays staccato notes that seem a bit longer than what real staccato sounds like (did that make sense?? :iffy:). Basically, I'm sending the sound file not the score so I wanted it to sound the best it can rather than looking the best it can. Thanks for listening, though and I'm glad you enjoyed it and thank you also to Michal Mank! :)

I've had a listen to your Opening and on the whole I liked it. However, there were some moments when the melody and the harmony didn't agree with each other too well and these parts weren't very pleasing to the ear. For example, in the beginning there are one of two notes which on the first listen sounds like the player played the wrong notes. I did really like the strumming in the background. Something you may want to try is resting it half-way through and making it return towards the end of the piece. That may make the guitar even more effective. As I said before, I quite liked the piece. There are some minor things which you may or may not want to think about. Anyhow, well done!

Thanks guys! Thanks Andy1044 for taking the time to make a detailed list. I really appreciate the advice!

I asked a simple question. That question was 'Hey! I think this, does anybody else agree or is it just me?' I never got a direct answer. Instead, I ended up in a conversation about innovation in music which didn't lead to anywhere anyway. Looking at the posts I get the idea that nobody agrees with me. That's fine. I'm happy to say then that perhaps I was wrong. This is not a U-turn or a step back. I never said that SimenN copied for certain. I thought my first post would be a helpful contribution. I thought that the piece had plagiarised someone else's work. Now it seems I may have been wrong but would it not be helpful if people mention it whenever they feel a work has taken ideas from someone else? Let's say that SimenN had plagiarised. Let's say somebody listened to his piece and thought it sounded dead similar to another piece but they couldn't put their finger on that actual piece. Shouldn't they voice their concerns anyway? Shouldn't they mention what they think in the hope that someone else agrees and can actually name the piece? I made my first post with the very best of intentions. SimenN showed arrogance when he stated that he doesn't copy or take other people's ideas. What if he does it sub-consciously? In fact, everybody probably does it sub-consciously sometimes. I'll take back my accusation of outright plagiarism. In fact, I never even stated outright plagiarism. I thought the first few bars sounded similar to something I'm sure I've heard before. I guess however, I'm happy to do this. My other 'outspoken' criticisms will not be taken back by me though.

Well it can be a theme if people associate the music with a character, etc. As long as it works. I haven't seen the film myself but looking at some previous posts it seems as if it does. Even you recognise the theme and associate it with characters. So yeah...it's a theme.

I think maybe you should give this topic some thought. First of all, notice the difference between having the same style and using the same passage of music. Two different things. Even then, I think it's wrong to try and emulate somebody else's style exactly because I think everybody is unique and therefore should try and find their own unique voice. By the way, I do know how composition 'works' (whatever that means - it works differently for everybody). Since when was the name of the game taking someone else's work and saying it's yours? There are reasons why there's even a law against it!! Again, context is so important and you have to look at how someone else's theme is developed and moulded into a composer's own work. If it's done well that's fine but if it has just been lazily taken and slapped on a work without much change to it then it's wrong. If you read my posts carefully you'll find I never made a statement saying that you copied for definite. I even pointed that out in another post. You'll also find me saying that the argument 'all the good melodies have been taken' is nonesense because 'good' is different to everybody and will change according to time. Experiment to find new ways of creating 'good' music without having to use somebody else's themes. A composer creates. You are not creating if you use somebody else's stuff. You are simply playing their work. If you want to make noises which sound nice to you but have already been composed why don't you call yourself a musician instead of a composer? Because you're not creating, you're just making nice sounding noise already composed by others. We're going to have to agree to disagree. Debates are only useful if both sides are willing to learn from each other and listen in the hope everybody comes out more enlightened. I don't think it's going to happen here. Sorry!

This probably goes back to what I said about 'good' music and its definition. There are only 12 notes in the chromatic scale but there aren't only 12 types of sound in this world. How about the sound between E and F? What about a combination of those sounds? How about those combination of those sounds in a different order? The thing is, as we've grown up listening to the standard chromatic scale with 12 tones, we find listening to anything else weird. This also goes back to listening to more music. Try listening to composers like...I don't know...Debussy. Nothing out of this world but his harmonies can be quite weird at first. Hopefully, you will appreciate 'good' music that you never thought was good before. Yes, I think it's taboo to write a phrase of music that has already been written. Of course, something like music isn't always black and white and there are contexts to be considered (a musical joke or writing variations to an already-composed theme). But generally, you can't take somebody else's work and say it's yours. Just think how you would like it if somebody took your melody and said they composed it all by themselves. I'm sure there are plenty of threads on this forum about these topics. I'd like to carry on discussing plagerism and what's acceptable and what isn't. The problem is, there aren't many people reading this thread so it's only the ideas of us two that are being discussed. It's always useful to listen to what other people think. If you can't find a thread then you can always start one yourself. Just keep on listening to lot's of different music and don't give up trying to make original music. You will get it eventually. Nobody said it was easy!

No, I can't. But wait just one second there!! Woah! It's a little early to celebrate victory for now. Yes, I see what you mean by blowing hot air if you have no evidence. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong, it just means I may not be right. At first, I just wanted to point out what I thought for SimenN's benefit. I had hoped the fact that I found his piece familiar would alarm him and make him think a little harder just in case he has taken a phrase or two from someone else. If after the end of a long think he still can't find something similar to his work then he doesn't have to worry. If you read my first post on this thread you'll have noticed that I asked if anybody else felt what I felt. I never made a statement saying "THIS IS COPIED FOR CERTAIN!" Why did I ask if anybody else agreed with me? Because I wan't sure (as I've said several times on this thread actually). Why wasn't I sure? Becuase I can't put my finger on that piece of music. Look! You've even quoted me saying that I'm not sure. If I had the piece of course I would have named it and I would have been certain whether SimenN had copied or not becuase I could listen to it and look for similarities. Also I find it a bit annoying that you failed to address my points. I did make an effort to contribute to the thread and to the debate about innovation in music. What you've done is avoid what I've said and try and put me on the defensive without defending yourself first.

So are you saying that it's fine to write music that sounds like someone else's work just because there's lots of music that has been composed before you? I don't think that it's impossible to write music that is original. Being influenced by a composer and having echoes of somebody else's style is one thing, taking chunks of someone else's work is another. Now I'm not accusing SimenN of that (again, I

Of course, you wouldn't purposely steal anybody else's work. That's called plagiarising and that's cheating and it's very very bad... I'm not saying that you intended to take somebody else's work. I'm saying that you may have unconsciously written something from your head that is actually a work that you've heard from elsewhere. People get it all the time thinking that they've just experienced a stroke of genius and marvel at how a tune has just written itself out. I’m not completely certain that you have written something which is very similar to something else so that’s why I asked if anybody agrees with me. If not then it’s probably just me at fault. Looking at your post count and just generally snooping around a bit I got the impression that you could do better than this piece. Maybe I was wrong to do so because I don’t know you, I’m new to this forum and I’ll admit that I haven’t heard much of your previous work. When I say that this particular piece lacks originality I mainly mean the harmony and its progression. I’ll admit another thing now too: I’m no expert on harmony. I’m completely self-taught in composition but I do believe that your chord progression in this piece lacks interest. I’m not saying that you should start being radical or whatever but it’s nice (even if you’re still learning) to try and vary the harmony a bit. Listen to lots of different music and listen to it’s chord progressions. I know it’s easy to get offended when somebody accuses you of plagiarism. I didn’t intend to upset anyone (if you are upset).

I can't help but think this piece lacks in originality and that the first few bars have been taken from somewhere else. Is it just me or does anyone else think this?

Wow, a piece for the virtuoso! I really like the bit from 1:44 onwards. I also liked some of the rhythms you gave the left hand throughout the piece. I'll be honest however and say that I didn't really like the section from 1:10 to 1:21. Overall though, I want to say well done!