karelm

I'd consider Aaron Jay Kernis, Michael Torke, and Kamran Ince to fall in this group. Probably David Lang but I'm not that familiar with his work. Probably Julia Wolfe. Coincidentally, a group of composers a generation after Phillip Glass.

I consider John Adams to be a post-minimalist composer. His early music, such as Phrygian Gates, was clearly influenced by Reich, Terry Riley and Philip Glass but in general he seems more like a neo-romantic with some minimalist tendancies. Harmonielehre has some development and climaxes you'd expect in a romantic symphony. I find Adams to be a much more sophisticated composer than Glass. For example, where Glass might write an extended passage with 16th notes, Adams would write a passage with offset rhtyhms that result in a 16th note feel. I just find Adams to be more skilled and dynamic and also fit within a tradition while using minimalism as a technique rather than a goal. Overall, I find his music to be very good. I love Nixon in China. It is a very effective piece and probably one of the great American operas. Is he a genius? That's hard to say, but I would certainly describe him as an effective, intelligent, communicative, relevant contemporary composer.

I like this discussion and find it thought provoking. My take on this topic is to use visual images as a parallel. Please take a look at these three images – all based on the color red. Red 1 - http://www.homeplateheroes.com/Bright%20Red%20Suede.jpg Red 2 - http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds2-5/red-rose-side.jpg Red 3 - http://hypermedia.educ.psu.edu/k-12/units/expression/munch.scream.jpg Excuse this analogy but I think its pretty good - The first image in and of itself cannot express absolute emotion because it lacks context even though we might have a personal response to it. In the second image, based on the same color, a clear emotion is expressed but it will still be relative to the viewer's interpretation though to many people depending on your cultural or environmental associations, it will mean romance or something derived from that. In some cultures roses mean jealosy. To some it is a symbol of respect. You get the point - the exact meaning is open to interpretation but it seems to generally mean the same thing to people of similar histories and cultures. In the third image, I think most cultures will see this as an intense and private gutural pain. But that isn't exactly what it means to everyone. I've heard someone refer to it as a bad LSD trip. Edvard Munch said that The Scream represented the "infinite scream of nature." In an interview with Sue Prideaux, Munch recalled a time when he was on the verge of madness, and, as he walked with friends, the sun set in a sky that was nearly blood red. Exhausted, he felt an overwhelming anxiety. He said, "You know my picture, The Scream? I was stretched to the limit -nature was screaming in my blood... After that I gave up hope of ever being able to love again." So it can mean different things to different people but within a framework that I would assume is universal (I doubt anyone would see it as a happy picture even those who have never seen symbolist art however to Munch it was more about loss of hope towards unrequitted love; to me it is a general private pain). I think we can apply this to music - red can't in and of itself have a meaning just like the note C can't have a meaning without its broader contextual framework. But the end result is still relative and open to interpretation though the more context that is given, the more sophisticated and nuanced the final interpretation can be, it is still relative to one's experiences and personal feelings.

Hi Nikolas, Congratulations on your premiere! I enjoyed this piece. It reminded me of Honegger symphony 2...especially the ostinato in the low strings. Yes, there are some intonation issues, but it's not too bad. I thought it was tonal but spicey with some interesting textures. I thought the ending was a bit abrupt but otherwise enjoyed it.

Hi Dule, Just a few comments - if you haven't heard the composers I mentioned, I would certainly advise you to listen and explore because they are far from obscure composers. It is like an actor having never heard of Lawrence Olivier or Richard Burton. It becomes hard to accept the actor as serious. Also, even though you might not have heard the works I listed as "influences", I assume you've heard others who have been influenced by those same works. Sorry, I didn't catch that the number of instruments is based on the samples you were using - makes perfect sense now. I don't know why you would presume "although I am aware that this piece will never be performed live, so it's not issue on which i pay special attention". There are many reasons why you shouldn't think this. What if you want to apply to a music school? I don't know how old you are or if this is an intention, but practicality is an important concern. Also, perhaps you do meet someone who does offer you a chance to have your music performed (it does happen). So make sure your music is 100% ready to go and that means practical as well. If you have no interest in your music ever being performed, I must ask, why do you have any interest in it being heard at all and in that case, why are you even posting your music here? Good luck though!

Justin, Love the start – it has a nice anticipatory feeling required of a work of this duration. You have a good sense of pacing too – intro sounds like a good length and yields new material when needed in a gradually unfolding way. From a melodic inventiveness, I felt section 10 meandered a bit with material that wasn’t particularly interesting. There are many, many nice moments, but the melodies don’t linger in one’s mind as much as they could. Just my opinion. The climax at 21 is really well written. The fugue at 31 was well executed and nicely interwoven into the piece. At section 18, I would suggest not dividing violin 1 but rather put them all on the upper note to help reinforce with what will probably have a thin strained sound and dividing violin 2 instead. The voicing’s are clean and effective and your control of structure is skillful. I particularly like the more prokofievian moments such as section 11 and 12. I thought the A material (I guess the more Prokofiev moments) were overall stronger than the melodic richness of the B material. It was well executed, just not memorable enough. For example, I hope this doesn’t come off the wrong way, but think of the late Romantic Russian composers like Glazunov, Arensky, Kalinnikov. In my opinion, these guys were technically very strong, but lacked the melodic flair of Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Rimsky-Korsakov, etc. In short, they were overshadowed and I think ultimately was just their ideas weren’t as strong for a variety of reasons. My orchestra recently played Kalinnikov and it sounded very Russian, very Tchaikovsky, but always somehow lacking in terms of the focused strength of the ideas – not the execution of those ideas (well, maybe a little bit of that too but that wasn’t the most noticeable problem). Mussorgsky was a great example of someone with the opposite problem, wonderful ideas but lacking somewhat in the technique of knowing how to fully exploit those ideas. In short, I think your melodic ideas could be more memorable. Please don’t take this as an insult because it isn’t meant to be, but rather as a challenge to take your melodic ideas up a notch. I know some very gifted composers who say they struggle very hard on melodies and would give anything to have that one melody that lingers in everyone’s minds so given the vocabulary of your music, I believe this is something you too strive for - that memorable idea that can't be shaken from one's mind. For the slow movement, I like the choral intro and the Mahlerian adagio feel. That oboe solo on page 52 has a wonderful alpine quality that is found all over Mahler. I do feel there is something missing from the slow movement and that is how it fits in to the overall structure of the symphony. This is picky, but to me, you can’t replace the slow movement of Mahler Symphony No. 1, 2, 3, etc., with each other. Same for Beethoven, Brahms, etc. Those movements perfectly fit into the whole of those works. They are part of a bigger picture within that symphony and I think this is a very common characteristic of great music. It is sort of how with a great meal, it would be more than just a lot of good individual items that taste great on their own, but at its best, they would somehow balance and contribute to each other in a unique way. Overall, I liked it and this would sound great on a real orchestra. This is an impressive piece and you should be proud to add this to your growing body of work!

I enjoyed it. I see the influences as slightly more diverse such as the start of Gorecki’s Symphony No. 3 at the start of your piece. I also hear some Vaughan Williams – Symphony No. 6 and I do hear some of the close ties to Holsts Planets and Shostakovich. These are good comparisons. The orchestra seems unnecessarily large. For example, 3 piccolos plus 3 flutes, etc? 3 bassoons but it is almost always written as 1 unison line (except a few places in octaves). Just consider being more efficient with your use of instrumentation. Also, I think a sense of rhythmic variety at the start would help it. For example, think of the start of Shostakovich Symphony No. 10 where the cello and bass play out a long melody with plenty of rhythmic interest maintained. Some places the melodic lines would build and have dialog with each other – perhaps the low strings answer a phrase from the high strings? In bar 30, why does the harp have three beats but the orchestra has 2 beats per measure? Are these triplets? I also think it needs more harmonic variety – both in terms of the functional harmony but also harmonizing some of the melodic lines could make it more interesting. For example, starting at bar 6, the cello plays the double bass line sounding an octave higher. After the third repeat of the phrase (which should be slurred to not play as detached notes but rather as a phrase), you take the cello up to C flat. Perhaps the double bass should hold the G natural. Basically, there is quite a bit of doubling rather than thinking in terms of lines. A flat minor is not a very good key and it doesn’t seem to really need to be in this key. String players would not be happy with you here. Basically, you could say the same thing more directly and more easily which is something we should all strive for musically. Nice job overall.

Ok, that makes perfect sense. To me, if a composer has no interest in the audience it is bad for the medium. If the composer has 100% interest in the audience, it is bad for the composer’s artistry since they seek to be the "flavor of the month" and follow a fad. So all composers need to find a balance where they are able to maintain artistic integrity, but also speak to someone. The message can be complex, it can be challenging, but it should at least strive to be understood in some way. Otherwise, it can exist in a vacuum which I don’t think any artist wants. As my quote from Schoenberg above shows, even those who on the surface couldn’t care less about the masses, deep down, they have a longing to be understood and appreciated - to move someone and connect. I am a composer in residence with an orchestra and based on hearing from the orchestra performers, I’ve found most performers to prefer to play something that makes sense to them that speaks in some way, and has something of value to say. They love a challenge as long as it makes sense. So ultimately, who do we as composers serve? Is it ourselves? The performers? The audience? At its best, it will be a combination and not alienate any of the above. The ratio is less important to me because that even changes for the same composer, but at least all of these should be factored and never ignored. I totally understand this because I also play in an orchestra. I have played pieces where I don’t understand what the composer meant. I don’t understand why they did something and this tends to frustrate me whereas a single note played at pianissimo is far more substantial when it makes sense in context to the whole. Performers are ok with challenge, just not nonsense. This is why I believe orchestras are relevant, but must continually strive to be relevant in this environment that increasingly has less and less interest and patience for the effort needed to appreciate it (please re-read the Stravinsky quote in my first post on this tread). This has always been a problem. I highly recommend reading Alex Rose’s book, The Rest is Noise. http://www.therestisnoise.com/2004/05/what_is_this.html

Some very good points. I agree just because something is popular and/or profitable doesn't mean it has less artistic merit. Our current challenge is audiences don't find the relevance of concert or orchestral music for the reasons already outlined above. I also believe historically, there has been an attitude of if it is popular, it is not art. “If its art, it is not for all. And if it is for all, it is not art.” – Schoenberg. I happen to love Schoenberg, but ultimately, the attitude was influential and did much more harm than good as some forthcoming composers believe music must not be liked for it to be good otherwise you are a sellout. I don't believe we as composers should strive to please the audience as the goal, but rather should not go out of our way to ignore audiences either. There is certainly a middle ground of challenging yet satisfying audiences, performers, and staying true to our artistry. I find this quote from Schoenberg very telling - “But there is nothing I long for more intensely (if for anything) than to be taken for a better sort of Tchaikovsky, for heaven’s sake: a bit better, but really that’s all. Or if anything more, then that people should know my tunes and whistle them.” - Schoenberg, 1947. I find this extremely revealing because during the Gurreleider premiere, Schoenberg didn't even acknowledge the audience. He only bowed to the orchestra and had his back towards the audience though there was a huge standing ovation. Apparently he cared about making a connection as well. SSC, since you don't care about "communicating" with music, do you have any interest in having your music performed? If so, why? If not, then I assume you write music and when finished just put it in the closet since you have no need to say something? Actually, in re-reading your statement above, I might be reading too much into what you are saying so if you can clarify.

It's an excellent question, Justin. I believe orchestras are completely unique in the collective effort it takes to successfully pull off their objective. Not just do you have the decades of training by each musician, conductor, etc., but the composer as well, plus the instrument making over centuries of gradual evolution in their craft. I believe orchestras are evolving and so are the audiences. They will still be around in centuries to come but I don’t believe their role will be the same. To me the important question isn't really what's next for the orchestra, but rather what is next for writing serious music. This is a quote I really like: "A few twentieth century composers achieved extraordinary fame: Sibelius’s fiftieth birthday in 1915 was front page news in Finnish papers. It is inconceivable that anything like this would ever happen to a composer of classical music today. At best, he or she can only hope to create a mild ripple in the mass media pond. The last work whose premiere was a major public event was probably Britten’s War Requiem in 1962. The great communicators today are in the world of rock music." - Composer David Matthews. It seems around the 1950's and 60's, rock became the music that connects with the feelings of the audiences when classical music boldly alienated its audience. I think that hurts us today because ultimately music has to be a communicative medium - it has to say something of relevance to someone in my belief. Beethoven was a composer functioning at the peak of his creative powers where only classical music could be the canvas for his art and the orchestra being the greatest range of that canvas. I'm not sure if he was alive today, classical music would even be the pinnacle. It might be too restrictive. I believe popular music (music for the masses) and serious music have lived side by side for hundreds of years. But around the 1920's, and 1930's, with the advent of radio, film, then TV, and eventually internet, serious music is struggling to find relevance with an audience that is becoming increasingly interested in instant gratification. It is hard to justify sitting through an hour long concert piece if the best climax might be available on youtube or itunes in chunks. Ultimately, the ease of getting something reduces its value. I find this section from Igor Stravinsky’s autobiography relevant. In his very perceptive autobiography, he discusses the pros and cons of musicians reaching wider audiences and how the advent of new technology (he was referring to radio though it could just as easily have been the ipod, internet, or whatever) would ultimately weaken the reach of music because now it requires less effort from its audience. In this passage, Stravinsky convincingly makes the case that the ease that it takes listeners to hear music ultimately deadens their interest in music. "The propagation of music by mechanical means and the broadcasting of music - that represent formidable scientific conquests, which are very likely to spread even more - merit close examination as for their importance and their effects in the domain of music. Of course, the possibility for both authors and performers to reach the masses, and the fact that these masses are able to make themselves acquainted with musical works, represent an unquestionable advantage. However, it cannot be concealed that this advantage is dangerous at the same time. In the past, someone like Johann-Sebastian Bach had to walk ten leagues in order to hear Buxtehude perform his works. Today, any inhabitant of any country simply has to either turn a knob or play a record in order to listen to the piece of his choice. Well! It is in this very incredible easiness, in this very lack of effort that lies the vice of that so-called progress. In music, more than in any other branch of art, comprehension is only given to those who actively contribute to it. In itself, the massive reception is not enough. The listening of certain combinations of sounds, and the automatic growing accustomed to them does not necessarily involve the fact of hearing and grasping them, for one can listen without hearing, the same way one can watch without seeing. What renders people lazy is their lack of active effort and their developing of a liking for this easiness. People no longer need to move about as Bach had to; the radio spares them the traveling. Neither do they absolutely need to make music themselves and to waste time studying an instrument in order to know the musical literature. The radio and the disc take over. As a result, the active faculties, without which music cannot be assimilated, gradually atrophy among the listeners who no longer train them. This gradual paralysis leads to extremely serious consequences. Overwhelmed with sounds, the most varied combinations of which leave them indifferent, people fall into a sort of mindless state, that deprives them of all ability to judge, and renders them indifferent to the very quality of what they are served. In the near future, such disorganized overfeeding is more than likely to make listeners lose their hunger and their liking for music. Indeed, there will always be some exceptions - some people within the hoard will be able to select what they like. However, concerning the masses, one has all the reasons to fear that instead of generating love for and understanding of music, the modern means involved in spreading music will lead absolutely to opposite results; it is to say, they will lead to indifference, to the inability to recognize them, to be guided by them, and to have any reaction of some value." Igor Stravinsky - "Chronicles of My Life" – 1935 I believe serious music is in our blood. I read about an experiment where rats were tested by psychologists to see how they would react to Bach's music and rock music. The rats were placed into two different boxes. Rock music was played in one of the boxes while Bach's music was played in the other box. The rats could choose to switch boxes through a tunnel that connected both boxes. Almost all of the rats chose to go into the box with the Bach music even after the type of music was switched from one box to the other. According to an article that appeared in the LA Times recently, “Dr. Antonio Damasio, director of USC's Brain and Creativity Institute, is an expert on emotion and a committed musicophile. Even if music did little more than lift our spirits, he says, it would be a powerful force in maintaining physical and mental health. The pleasure that results from listening to music we love stimulates the release of neural growth factors that promote the vigor, growth and replacement of brain cells.” Responses to music are easy to be detected in the human body. Classical music from the baroque period causes the heart beat and pulse rate to relax to the beat of the music. As the body becomes relaxed and alert, the mind is able to concentrate more easily. Furthermore, baroque music decreases blood pressure and enhances the ability to learn. Music affects the amplitude and frequency of brain waves, which can be measured by an electro-encephalogram. Music also affects breathing rate and electrical resistance of the skin. It has been observed to cause the pupils to dilate, increase blood pressure, and increase the heart rate. You could see this as evidence that well written and well performed music won't go away. It's in our blood. My point here is ultimately that orchestras are competing with instant gratification cultures. There are some who respond better to the real deal, but that is increasingly rare with our current cultural mindset. Orchestras need to evolve to remain relevant. They need to be properly marketed and “sold” to new audiences otherwise their relevance will reduce. Orchestral composers need to create masterpieces that show the orchestra as the only device cable of expressing their musical vision. Note some orchestras are doing extremely well. Great question. Sorry for the extremely verbose response, I have a few opinions on this topic. ;)

Hi, I am in need of some help orchestrating and/or part creation in Finale 2009. This is for a large 80 piece orchestra and given the schedule I am unable to do both so am looking to get some extra help. I would send you the orchestrated score and you send me the parts in the provided template. The turn around needs to be quick so I am looking for someone who has experience doing this with high quality and precise results. If you are experienced creating professional looking parts and have Finale 2009, please contact me and we can talk price.

Overall, I think it is a very good and comprehensive overview. I like that it keeps a positive attitude and it is clear you and your team put A LOT of work into this. You keep the information coming at a very nice and gradual pace and break it down to only a sentence or two which is perfect easy to digest chunks. It is really good that you repeat the opportunity for the student to listen again to a phrase. For example you say “Let’s listen to that section again”. This really helps drill in the concept and what the problem area is that is about to be addressed. I really liked how you mixed the various media such as diagrams, audio, video, etc. It is also good that you walk the student through a simple process (such as duplicating the melody twice) then explain why it has some weakness. It might be better if you demonstrate side by side so the student can hear a “before” and “after” version to compare the enhancement side by side. Did you have a section that explains (and demonstrates) the various differences between melodic fragments? So it shows a motif, a phrase, a melody, etc. so the student can see and hear how they differ plus perhaps something that morphs the melody so a student can understand it is possible for a melody to become a motif, etc.? Overall, I thought this course was quite comprehensive. Having the section on achieving specific moods is a nice touch. How about putting a section with some of the basics of counterpoint – including some of the various ways chords moves – contrary, parallel, etc. Also, some more detail on voice leading might be good. Can you have a line that moves across the score to show the student where they are listening during playback? Basically, just something to help them follow along. I see in some sections this was done, like in “Putting It Together – Orchestral” sample but others it wasn’t. How about a dictionary section? When the word arpeggio is first used, it could be a link to a dictionary section so if the student forgets what that means, they can always find it in the dictionary section? I thought it was very clever the way you showed pop and classical settings of chord progressions. My 6 year old niece loves pop but hates classical so this was a nice way to show her how much alike they are. It might be good to have some details about form. Going from binary to sonata? Just a thought because I think that would be very useful but probably quite complex to have such a big complex topic. Also, in the form section, you can address some topics such as dramatic development (how to hold the listeners attention – climax, etc.) Really good job overall. I would recommend this course to students who are interested in learning the basics of composition.

Even if you are mastering just one track, it would still help to master it because you are basically taking the mixed audio and adjusting it (EQing, compressing, exciting, etc.) for its target output (car stereo? ipod? internet mp3? headphones?) because of this you might adjust certain things for its specific output. You are in essence taking a finished mixed down audio file and producing the best sound for your targetted device. I guess if you are mixing and mastering one audio file for one purpose, the mixing and mastering happen at the same time. Usually, audio recordings have multiple audio sources - you'll have violins, violas, clarinets, etc. So, those multiple sources all have different levels and need to be combined into a stereo audio file. The combining, panning, Eqing, adjusting levels, etc., then mixing down is all part of the mixing process. Yes, you absolutely need to EQ modern sample libraries. Here is why - the frequencies build up in an unnatural way. Usually in the mid levels and make tutti passages sound muddy so you need to start reducing the mids as they build up to keep a clean focused sound. So, even if a violin sample sounds great in isolation, when you add violas, and cellos, you now have an unrealistically high mid build up that now needs reduction. Its kind of difficult to say without hearing what you have but this is a general rule of thumb. So the type of music you compose will dictate how much and where to EQ it, but pretty much all the time you need adjustments. I have Symphobia which is pretty well EQed. But if I use two or more samples together, time to EQ it. Are you in school? If so, do check out the recording engineering department and make some friends. They can do wonders for your sound.

Note, mixing and mastering are not the same thing. Though the difference is confusing, mixing is taking multiple recorded signals and panning them into a well balanced sound, adjusting the levels in relation to each other, adding EQ, reverb, limiters, exciters, etc., to have a good version where all the elements are "mixed" together in an appropriate way. Mastering is when you take a mixed piece and blend it with other pieces to have a natural, flowing, consistency when listened to. For example, I worked with an engineer on a CD and we took all the mixed music and mastered it for CD so the levels where made appropriate as a listening experience from start to finish. This required boosting some of the signals that were lost when at the original levels. The job of the mastering engineer is to make sure all the music sounds natural and consistent, that the volume levels are approximately the same, that equalization is optimal for the final listening experience - such as on a CD, and that the sequencing between the music sounds good. Another example of mastering is we sometimes take music recorded in different venues and when you listen to it back to back, you can tell one is recorded in someone's bedroom but the next one is in a concert hall. Ideally, this is transparant to a listener so in the mastering process, the music that might have sounded fine in isolation now needs to blend in better so we'll change some EQ and effects to balance the two out better. It is a confusing difference but it sounds like what you are referring to is creating a good mix. Some general tips: 1.) Don't add too much EQ to fix a problem - for example, if you want more high end, rather than adding more EQ in the high end, take away some of the low end. Professional mixers do a lot more removing of wrong signals than adding of right signals. 2.) When working with EQ, start with a frequency, make the "Q" (angle of the frequency adjustment) the maximum, boost the frequency to the max, and slowly pan it from top to bottom of the frequency range. You'll hear some horrible frequencies jump out at you. When you find one of those frequencies, start reducing the level of the frequency and softening the Q. This will remove one of the bad frequencies. So keep doing this for the other improperly boosted frequencies. 3.) The order you apply the effects is important. I usually do EQ -> reverb -> compresser. (but this depends on what the problem areas are). 4.) I usually find that the midlevels over build - such as 400khz so you remove some of that about 2 db. 5.) Usually you work with gentle slopes in your EQ rather than extreme slopes. 6.) I usually avoid limiters and use compressors instead. Limiters are like compressers except limiters stop everything that reaches a certain level (which can be noticeable) but compressors, can boost low signals while softly reducing high levels (which can sound more natural). 7.) In general, don't overdo anything - it is tempting, but just add a lit touch here and there. When you are first learning how to mix, find a recording of music similar to yours and compare and contrast often. See where they differ and gradually apply small changes to yours then return to the referenced recording. About 95% of my mixes are only done with EQ, reverb, and compressors. As for software, most sequencers have pretty decent EQ, reverb, compressors, etc. The remaining effects might be exciters, sub-bass boosts, auto-tune, etc. But if you have extra cash, I like Altiverb for reverb., Izotope Ozone is pretty good too. Waves bundle is very nice but pricey and includes a kitchen sink of stuff. Not all mixing software is the same. A high priced EQ will sound better than a low priced one. Feel free to post your mix up for feedback.

I am going to start giving a young high school student composition lessons and I wanted to ask those who have taught before for some advice. Most importantly, two areas that I need help on... 1.) Any suggestions for a basic curriculum? Since I haven't taught before, I am not too sure how to start. 2.) What is the best way to instill that sense of "wonder" and deep excitement towards music? Basically, I don't want to be the one responsible for turning someone off of music, but rather making them want to know more and develop that hunger for it. Any advice is appreciated.