zephyrclaw

As a would-be performer and composer myself, I'm always slightly shocked and suspicious when someone claims they play "French horn, piano, guitar, violin, cello, saxophone and flute", or an extremely lengthy list to that effect. In summarized terms, my instruments are guitar and piano, but that could always be expanded to "classical guitar, electric guitar, acoustic guitar, bass guitar, piano and keyboards". Of course, I'm not a master at all of these; the only instruments I formally learn are classical guitar and piano, and I'm hardly a specialist at either. This leads me to wonder whether this is an advantageous way to go. For me, I feel that it's quite helpful to play a family of instruments (guitar). As I play two instruments (let us count guitar as one for now), I'm not as proficient at piano as, say, performers who have been playing it since the age of 4 without focusing on anything else. However, I'd have to admit that I'm above average at both, so while I'm not excellent, I'm probably somewhere hazy between mediocre and superb. With time, that standard will hopefully be raised. However, I can see the advantages of specializing in a single instrument. For example, virtuosos often seem to be excellent composers as well. I refer to names in the electric guitar world, such as Joe Satriani and Neil Zaza. On the other hand, some would argue that performance ability has nothing to do with composition, and that's probably true for a percentage of musicians. Ironically, it must take quite a bit of talent to visualize and compose when performance ability is supposedly "lacking". Which style describes you best? Which do you feel is the most effective?

First of all, let me assure you that I'm quite aware that orchestration takes years to study and cannot be learnt overnight or gained suddenly, unless one possesses a considerable amount of musical talent. However, a question I'd like answered in the simplest terms possible is: is it an unforgivable crime to have instruments not play for many bars or double other sections? My music teacher at school has repeated that comment quite a few times, but I find it to be hugely ironic, since many highly effective compositions - and even works he has shown the class - feature several pages or more of rests in several sections. In fact, wouldn't it be even more ineffective to have a constant overload of sounds? Would not the power of the full orchestra lose its impact if it were to be used too frequently? As for the second part of the question, isn't doubling useful, to a certain extent? Is there a rough guide as to how much each of doubling and rests is considered too much, or would it be wiser to simply see "how it sounds" for a would-be composer such as myself who knows not of the ways of orchestration? Thanks!

You confuse and frighten me greatly, but rest assured than I mean you no harm. The cabbages embrace you. How long have you been composing for, Blenching Snail?

It was an extremely original song and I must say I enjoyed it immensely. It could easily be my favourite user composition I've heard on the Internet. In fact, yes, it is. Continue composing, O Slimy One, but stay the hell away from my cabbages. P.S. Or else. SALT. Oh, and I must ask, what software did your Snail-ness use? Did you first create a hand-slimed score or input directly into a computer? And...is that a live orchestra I hear? However do the snails manage to hold their violins? What a terribly disturbing thought.

Is it just me or is that piece amazing? I can't imagine your skill level now if you knew nothing about orchestration back then. o_0

It was quite enjoyable, I must say. It was a lot more "intellectual" than many of the user-composed village themes I've heard, in that there was a variety of many different styles that flowed together seamlessly. I haven't heard anyone mix dissonant piano with drums, pizzicato strings and flute before. In short, it was awesome, especially if you don't often compose video game music. What's your usual style? EDIT: My apologies; it seems that I missed out the words "video game" when I originally typed out the post.

Don't worry; on the rare occasion I actually do "hear" something, it generally isn't very good, anyway. :shifty:

To "create beats for free", I recommend HammerHead Rhythm Station - Free Software Drum Machine for Windows.

Woah! You composed for a musical at the age of 11? o_0 After a year or so of playing classical guitar, I stumbled upon a tablature program. Somehow, I later realised that such software enables the user to create original compositions, not just play back transcriptions. Amazing, huh? I started off with an extremely terrible song based on a suspended A chord. I mean, it sounded "nice" on a guitar... Although I wasn't studying music as a subject at the time, I knew someone who was and had reached a blockage. I changed the tempo of the song and turned it into something quite clearly original (not necessarily "good"), which they promptly imitated and submitted as the second half of their piece. Grr. From then on, I began notating small riffs and licks here and there and over time it escalated into, to put it one way, my life's work. That's not to say that I'm a professional who earns a living from composition; that's impossibly far from it. However, as my interest in performance and composition grew, so too did my passion for music in general. Today, although I lament my lack of skill, music - especially composition - is the foremost aspect of my life.

I enjoyed it immensely and didn't find it to be monotonous. However, the ending was quite abrupt, which leads me to ask: is this unfinished, or does it just have a dissatisfying conclusion? I'm quite a fan of video game music myself, but even considering that I've probably heard more battle themes than most here, I don't feel that it's unoriginal, poorly done or uninteresting. Good work.

As a summarised definition, a harmonic is an overtone produced when a stringed instrument is plucked at a "node point". In plain English, it means that on a guitar, for example, the player can use the fretting hand to lightly touch a string at a certain point, which will produce a clear, bell-like sound. This is a harmonic. Here is a link to a quick instructional recording for your (un)enjoyment, thrown together with the help of my electric guitar.( I apologise for the poor sound; harmonics have a very different sound when subjected to distortion.) The first note is an ordinary fretted one, but this is followed by a series of random harmonics. After that, there's a tune you might recognise, first played solely with harmonics and next without. Maybe I should have tuned my guitar before I recorded.

...figure out a composition as one goes, or have it fully imagined in one's mind at the commencement of the project? I remember reading a discussion on this topic a while ago, but I cannot recall the result. All I remember is that one was good and one was bad. :P On a very similar note, supposing one was composing for orchestra and the strings had the melody throughout ('tis an example only), is it better to figure out the entire orchestra's parts at the same time, or write out the strings first. That is, should one have two bars of full orchestra or two hundred bars of strings only?

Sometimes I "hear" little snippets of guitar solos in my head, but they're gone in only a few seconds. I've read that practising interval recognition and perfect pitch (if you have it or successfully obtain it) help immensely.

Wow, Qccowboy, I actually quite enjoyed the tutorial piece you posted. It would work extremely well in a soundtrack situation. Something I've been wondering is: is it "wrong" to not have a distinct melody? As montpellier said, a book "can wreak havoc with a student in the early stages". I was once harshly criticised by some random musical genius on another forum for not apparently having a melody in one of my attempts. That bothers me a little, because I had thought that the piece did have one; it just wasn't as memorable as, say, the Schindler's List theme. Well hey, I can't help it if I'm in the possession of close to zero musical talent, so is it really so bad to have music that lacks a distinct melody? Qccowboy's melody wasn't a tune I would find myself humming after one listen, but it was still powerful stuff. Does a good composer always strive for a catchy, Nobuo Uematsu-style melody, or is it enough to simply have a few motifs, a chord progression or a riff, as long as the piece sounds like it has a direction?

There are only 2 pieces that I would currently consider to be of "ASAP" status. One is due next week and the other has an unknown, but most likely close, deadline. The first is essentially complete; some refining of harmonies may be needed and the ending is not yet finished. Also, a process diary of sorts is required as part of the assessment.