leightwing

As we all know, an IQ test does not test musical ability. However, as musicians, we can all attest to the value of a skill that music educators know of as steady beat - I.e., the ability to physically (via clapping or marching in time) keep time with the tempo of music. I'm not sure of the exact number of beats, but I think mastery for children is considered to be about 20 beats at quarter note =~ 108 . Studies have been done that make a direct correlation between students that have achieved steady beat (say, by the age of 7) and their future performance in math (thru, say, 7th grade). Mind you I'm quoting these ages and grades from memory; they are approximations. Make of this what you will, but by and large, musicians are generally stronger math students. This is just one reason that you should rock your children and expose them to music when they are young. Now as it turns out, a certain portion of how someone's IQ is derived is based on their math ability. Does this mean that it takes someone who is strong at math to be a good musician? Of course not. I teach both music and math to grades 5 thru 8, and I can tell you that the correllation between ability in one and the other seems strong from my experience. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. Does it mean that a student who develops steady beat at an early age has a better chance at being good at math? Yet, We all know a number of great musicians and composers who stink at math. So what does that tell us? I'll let you guys figure it out.

You have taken the phrygian mode and pounded it into the ground. Harmonically, it doesn't have enough interest. For the most part you are just shuttling between C minor (taking phrygian) and Db Major (taking lydian). You need either to inject some interest in the form a dominant at some point, or perhaps some chromatisisms (you could figure out a way to put these in your runs for instance). As the cowboy mentioned earlier, a key change wouldn't do it.

Book smart is only one facet of intelligence. Fast learning is an asset, but in no way guarantees intelligence. One very popular theory in educational circles is that of Multiple Intelligences, which posits that there are many different ways to learn, and we are all wired differently when it comes to learning. Also consider the concept of "smart" as not being something you are, but rather something you work toward. Bottom line: We all learn in different ways and at different speeds, and "smart" is a moving target - a verb, not an adjective. Everyone is a student, and true learners are never smart, they are simply getting smarter. If you embrace this philosophical approach to learning, there is almost no limit to what you can accomplish.

Define intelligence.

You drive that four chord progression into the ground and don't come out of it until m.33. when you finally arrive at the relative major (Cmajor). Unfortunately, your progression starting at 33 is similarly diatonic. My recommendation is to cut bars 1-8, and perhaps 25-28 or even 25-31 and change the chord at m.34 so it isn't the same A-minor you've been pounding since the beginning. Try and get away from 4-bar progressions before everything starts to sound like Heart and Soul. Just my two cents, but then I can't stand Pachelbel's Canon - Hearing the same progression over and over and over is like water torture.

I'm a rank amateur on viola, but this doesn't look that hard to play. I would think that the "Eb" at the top of the staff on treble clef, though no fun for me, should be pretty easy for a reasonably competent amatuer. Unfortunately, I am viewing with Finale so I can't see any dynamics or bowing indications (did you include them?) Finale opens up the viola part with a treble clef. You should score it in an alto clef and then perhaps change the clef at m.91-99 (and similar measures) to treble clef.

Yeah - this is a problem I have with our system of notation. Key signatures (or lack of them) can be missleading. I mean - Your peice starts out with no sharps and flats (I.e. C major) but then clearly hangs out in three flat territory for a while (with the occasional curve ball). Obviously you could change the key signature (for ease of reading), but just seeing a key signature can "influence" the players ears. My jazz training suggested that the ear percieves "keys of the moment", but they need to be set up and sustained to be "real". For instance in the progression C7 F Bb7 Eb Ab7 Db7 Gb., technically you could say it was in F, then Eb, then Db, then Gb - but the lack of any other diatonic chords in those keys leave them un-established as far as the ear is concerned. Your peice, on the other hand definitely establishes tonalities for sustained periods. On the other hand, you are right, you probably hear it differently than I do. My ears hear jazz voicings very readily, but I do have a pretty good handle on classical/traditional harmony - but when peices cross over idomatic lines, that's when things get all messed up. FWIW, when you don't change the key signature - My ear is "waiting" for things to resolve back to C, which... they do! That's why I asked the question. For instance, I would be very tempted to put this in three sharps if asked to transpose it down a minor third by a singer with a less than stratospheric range.

I agree with Nickthoven on this one. I Having both a D flat and natural in the same chord stands out quite noticeably because it is inconsistent with how you have treated all previous chord-scales (i.e., correctly - for lack of a better word). Personally, I think the the Db is out of place in the accompaniment - the Ab chord takes lydian very nicely. Certainly it's not atonal. Rather, it's VERY tonal, chock full of root position chords with color/tensions/upper-structure/whatever-you-like-to-call-them type voicings. And yes, it slips into a sub-dominant minor tonality for a quite a while there. I find it interesting that you think of this as being multi-tonal. I'm curious; if you were to score this peice a whole step lower, would you notate it in two flats?

I found this harmonically very interesting - but the rhythmic structures, either as accompaniment or melody were fairly mundane and predictable - I wonder that this was your objective. Of course, this is much more a stylistic (and subjective) criticism than a technical one -but FWIW, you could achieve the same musical effect, yet keep one step ahead of the listener by throwing in the odd meter. For instance, what if measure 49 was a 3/4, or even better, measure of 5/4?

The two stave homorhythmic choral writing doesn't bother me except that it is not clear how you prefer the men (or women) to divide when encountering three part writing. Of course, when there is two or four part writing, it is clear enough. But at the top of page three, do you want the tenors to divisi? ..or the basses? ..or do you want the men to divide evenly? A simple direction in the performance notes would suffice. In some ways, I actually like that you chose to write it this way because I could easily see what the rest of the men are doing as I read, which for instance, I'm sure would be very helpful with writing like what you have at rehearsal B. The polychord stuff is reasonably friendly to my ears, but often with this style of music, I must confess that I occasionally find myself unable to appreciate what's going on harmonically. I love many of the rhythms found in the piano accompaniment, which flows very musically. But.. I doubt there are many chiors that could pull this off with solid intonation. While most of your voice leading seems vocally friendly, many of your vertical structures feature intervals of major sevenths, minor ninths and tri-tones, which are by no means impossible to execute, but require singers with very good ears and consistent vowels - (by that, I'm tempted to say that I'm thinking of an experienced ensemble), and not neccessarily a college ensemble that experiences turnover every year. On the other hand, the ranges you have written in seem very college chior friendly. To be sure, learning to fing your entrance pitch wouldn't be fun with this one in a couple places, but most of the entrances don't seem too bad. All in all, very enjoyable on paper, but I'd be loathe to want to hear it performed by anything but a very strong chior.

Nope. Not I.

BTW, I should have mentioned that good fingering is a subtle art. Most times, just notating the position on the neck, a half bar, a single open string, or the fingering of a single note can force an entire sequence of desired fingerings. Knowing what not to finger is a important part of the art. Many peices require very little fingering. But the well placed suggestion here and there can make life much more easy for many a guitarist.

It seems that putting fingerings in guitar parts is somewhat of an interesting issue. On the one hand, it would seem that they are not necessary, and it makes sense that guitarists should play a piece in the way that works best for them. Certainly, for the non-guitarist composer, putting fingerings in is probably not very helpful, and at worst might even be confusing. But, on the other hand. It is precisely because the guitar presents so many options, not just in terms of which fingers to use, but also where to play the notes on the guitar, that fingerings can be very helpful, especially to beginning and intermediate players. Go out and look at most any available published major work for guitar, and you'll see that, even if the composer did not provide fingerings, the publisher did. This is not something that only pertains to the liturature for beginning or intermediate guitar music. Well fingered music is MUCH easier to read. The nuances of which string is being used for certain notes can be quite a bit more than just subtle. Ostensibly, for the composer that is a guitarist, they have put quite a bit of work into determining what works best for them. It is commonly understood that many fingerings are suggestions, and not carved in stone. Guitarist will instinctively gravitate from a suggested fingering to one that works better for them. But the original fingering usually presents a quick, down and dirty, but well thought out option. Also, the difference between using a ringing open string and and fingered one can make all the difference in a peice. In the case of Etudes and many studies, the fingerings are precisely what make the peice what it is. I for one very much appreciate them. And I have learned through experience that presentation is a huge part of having a peice learned easily, and this translates to a better, more fluid and intuitive performance. I'll bet dollars to donuts that your guitarist has marked up your score with fingerings. I would suggest that you ask him or her if you could put them in your score and if they think this is a good idea. My guess is, they will - and thier suggestions will make your peice that much easier for the next player. I'd be happy to take a look at a fingered score and make additional comments if you choose to try this out.

Any chance to see a pdf? - I can't open sib files and reading midi files is a joke in Finale. Playback is fine, but enharmonic spellings abound, and there are no fingerings, formatting etc.

Well, I listened to the second part only. I have to say that while your orchestration is fine, and your sense of movement and overall musicality is very good, I did not get an "outer space" vibe. Rather, it was very earthly. Perhaps, this could be a sound track for an expansive mountain landscape, or perhaps an underwater voyage, but definitely not outer space. Your harmonies and rhythms are much too triadic, standard, and predicatable. The snare parts could have been transcribed directly from a Civil War reenactement drum core. Granted, Your flute melismas are Star Warsy, but, that was about it as far as I could imagine in terms of its relating a feeling of the vast reaches of space. As is typical with a lot of talented "young" composers, your harmonic language is sophisticated only within the confines of a mostly triadic palette. This, in my opinion, is where you need to expand your horizons. Am I right in understanding that you are self taught? If this is true, then you have your work cut out for you. I recommend that you explore modal possibilities - both standard modes that we all know and love, but also the modes of the harmonic minor scale -this and other harmonic devices, such as pandiatonic writing, whole tone scales, and experimentation with polychords will provide you with a larger arsenal of tools to paint the pictures your are attempting. -Good luck with your work