Exanimous

If I absolutely had to make a guess at who could possibly be the next revolutionary music figure from what I know now, (a guess I wouldn't like to make) I'd base it on who thus far has shown extremely exceptional early development a la Mozart because in my mind that early talent which typically eclipses much older but more experienced composers suggests something substantial. The only person I can think of is the one who was the youngest to win serious 'recognition' with ASCAP and other awards, his name is Graham Cohen. The thing I fear with young exceptionally talented composers like this is that they receive inadequate or dangerous ideological training which closes their mind, thus cutting off opportunities for full individual growth. Lessons should guide, not inform or make decisions for young composers.

I don't know why we are all discussing this, as there will NEVER EVER be an ABSOLUTE linguistic definition of ANYTHING, save what one generally may mean by "classical music." Instead of asking to define a label, why don't you ask a more specific question, such as, why are certain pieces of music seen as "classical" vs others, and what, IN GENERAL does it mean to be "classical"? Asking this kind of question however is just like asking what is classical music, except without the music part. So again, why can't you be honest with what you really want to know? Why is that you ask what is classical music? Do you want a definition from a musicological source? If so, why go here? Do you want a discussion? What do you really want? Do you want to listen to music by composers during this period? What is your intention behind this question? What are you trying to really answer? Are you trying to reflect upon what kind of music you write (as if needing a label for it is that important)? OR was it just a simple question that you didn't know, approximately, what time period has most been considered "classical" and what does this period define? I would like more specific questions, so I can discover your real question and answer that.

Well, if it is true that humans consistently perceive phrases/cadences as well as a sense of hierarchy or 'form', it seems that aesthetic value may not be relative. If we define aesthetic value as that which, after having acquired the categorical perception for the musical material, generate in the listener a strong positive preferential response, we can argue that, at least from a human perspective, aesthetic value is indeed not all relative, and that certain forms and phrases have more value than other forms and phrases and that this is generally consistent across populations of varying backgrounds and culture, as can be evidenced by the studies in the article. Thus, it seems as if by understanding these cognitive processes of music cognition and perception, we could learn, POTENTIALLY, what POSSIBLE models of music composition generate in human beings positive or potentially preferential responses, and avoid musical languages which typically engender negative or non-receptive responses or that expect listeners to hear what actually is imperceptible, i.e., extreme serialism in its most mathematical, procedural and perceptually unconcerned form, as well as some new complexity (not all, as there are valuable pieces of music which use serialist techniques and/or are procedurally very dense)

If interested in these questions, check out this link: http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/labs/levitin/research/Vines_Cognition.pdf

Sound into our ears is also data. Music playing in our head is ALSO DATA. Here is a breakdown: Air pressure waves hit the timpanic membrane which trigger the incus, malleus and stapes to transfer the energy of the air pressure waves to move liquid inside the cochlea. This moves sensitive hair cells in the basilar membrane which respond to different frequencies by how far up the basilar membrane they vibrate the hair cells. After this, neurons linking with the hair cells transduce signals via the spiral ganglion along the vestibular/auditory nerve and into the Medial Geniculate nucleus (via the thalamus) and finally into the auditory cortex for cortical processing. Along the way the original sound pressure wave is transduced, coded, recoded, and relayed via various unmentioned pathways before it finally can be interpreted as "sound." I don't see at all how this is not "data" especially given the amount of conversion and interpretation of various relay points before it interfaces with the auditory association area which then INTERFACES with the DATA to determine whether its sound, noise or music. Since it's data, it can't really be music/sound/noise can it, according to your definition, until it triggers the samples? Well there are regions in our brain (very developed ones) which can more easily differentiate timbre as compared to pitch. And how do you explain people not producing any sound externally but hearing it in their heads? Is that not also data but also sound? All we are doing with these programs is making a different link, (not so dissimilar to writing on paper what one thinks) from the perception of sound in our brain or in our environment to an interface which can store these sounds. You are saying a composer is not a composer based merely on his method of storing musical data for whatever. It would be be similar to saying, by analogy, that people who write with a pen (or anything else you arbitrarily decide is "better") are more writers than those who use pencils/chalk/blood etc.

Dialogue between pianos: masterful, Rhythmic interest: superb Melodic interest: exceptional Harmonic interest: still a little immature. This piece was great that even the general harmonic immaturity didn't really detract from the piece all that much. Definitely a potential ASCAP winner. You should try to write a fourth movement IMO. Sounds like someone else follows at the end but it never happens.

I'm sorry, but to be honest this comment seems contradictory. If someone's style is in general pretty bland, then how do you make the assertion that he has talent if in general it seems more mediocre to you? This is not my personal preference or opinion on his music (which had its moments), I just empathize with Chopin here that if this was being said about me, I'd be confused about what you're really saying, or if you're just trying to be kind.

Hey, I guess if a whole group believes an absurdity it's okay right? :-D First, check out Arvo Part's Sanctus: YouTube - Arvo P

Imo this has 27 seconds of interesting musical material (the last 27 seconds) with potential and 65 seconds of obnoxious, annoying, humorless, almost incoherent music. To be honest, I would pay one dollar to avoid being forced to listen to the first 65 seconds ever again in my life.

Discuss? Who’s afraid of the avant-garde? Prospect Magazine Thoughts? Concerns? Outrages? As always I love to read responses.

Hey guys, I was at a music seminar last week and during a discussion about imitation vs. originality and whether it's possible to really write like Bach without plagiarizing, a DMA student there (phD) in composition told us the story of a friend of his who, if continuing to write (or trying to write) in the style of J.S. Bach, would have to leave the university. I find it impossible to write like Bach and not plagiarize, mainly because if you DO write like Bach, it means what you're writing can be analyzed and basically found in a real Bach piece. If what you write cannot be found in an already composed Bach piece, then you are not writing like Bach, and rather failing to imitate or being original within your OWN voice, which in itself is being constrained by elements which can be taken directly from Bach's music and not your own ideas which you've tried hard to craft independently from influence (regardless of how ultimately unsuccessful that endeavor may be). Likewise, writing music in any previous style and attempting to claim it as your own original work is similarly absurd, since if you are truly writing in that idiom, then what you write can already be found to exist in some form, whereas if you break from that idiom, you are not writing in that form. So what often results is pastiche or simply plagiarism. Writing music inspired by Bach but which clearly is not like Bach is wholly different and is not what I am discussing, as is writing or trying to write like Bach for reasons of training technique.

Amazing. Hand's down. I agree with Nathan in that it's a must listen and Tokkemon in that's it compositionally brilliant. I also like the style when done right, and I agree it could be orchestrated and be made into a very successful piece. This is on the verge of mastery in my opinion.

Because I love how it sounds and how it resolves: Pretude No.1.mp3 - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage

Hi, Chris, I just checked my voicemail, and I decided to post all of it. Here is the updated sib file that only works with sib 6 I believe but I am not sure. If this is true I'll try to find a way around it: Mass for Advent - Chris Sahar.sib - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage PDF FILE: Mass for Advent - Chris Sahar.pdf - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage MP3 (Pseudo-realistic rendering, much better than sibelius or finale default library): Mass for Advent - Chris Sahar.mp3 - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage