Yachar

I'd say you are right that this is not quite chamber music. Add jazz drums and bass.

Gotta love those quartuplets in the harp in that 6/8 section, if I'm not messing that up. Such a prominent rhythmic idea that I'm surprised it remained only in the harp.

This is an old topic, but just to reply to you John: getting the fast p and f effects is actually very common on harpsichords with two manuals. You simply have the lower manual playing two strings and the upper plays one. Thus when the performer plays the lower manual it is louder and vice versa. Two dynamics and switching between them fast is thus nothing challenging. Of course crescendo and decrescendo are impossible, as noted. Also bar 171 and so is really too fast too be possible.

All that buzz , but in the end the article discusses how to make and keep an audience for new music. So in the end I don't really need it, do I?

Music is a cultural phenomenon. As all cultural phenomenons go, none of them exist in isolation. With this in mind, there are multiple frames and fields of interest when discussing music. What you espouse is the traditional musicologist view of only having in mind musical syntax. At some point in the history of musicology there was a revolution and pragmatics (audience reception etc) became the second most important (if not the most important for many) frame of discussion. Musical semantics is of course problematic. Music does not clearly denote anything, except for the most banal examples (using referential sounds in music, birdsong, wind etc).Yet there are also many who would take a look at musical semantics. There are ways to do this. Many have made attempts at more objective musical semantics, but this is not strictly necessary or possible, in my opinion. To turn back to the first point I made, music does not exist in isolation in our culture. As such there is grounds for shared interpretations of music. Or shared sub-cultural interpretations. Yes: they are not universal. Meaning is not strictly describable in deterministic terms, it depends on the interpretative lexicon of the audience, thus sbjective, as you'd put it. To some this is a problem, I can see this, to the semiotician, this subjectivity is inherent anyway and also describable. This lexicon can be discussed meaningfully though, without resorting to strictly individual psychologism. To you this discussion may be insignificant, but to many it isn't. But my first point was to also to bring attention to the fact, that relationship of tones or pitches is not necessarily the main focal point in many languages of music.

I hadn't considered modality to be a strong goal here, so my feedback lacked that element. If you are going for the simple modality of folk music, that often uses a burdon to establish it, then certainly. But even modal music started using leading tones and chromatic motion as it got more complex, pretty soon. (Take a look at any 16-17th century italian harpsichord music for example)

I respectfully disagree. The performer can of course add something of his or her own, but speaking purely in compositional terms, there is not much there to work with when compared with anything else that could be given to them. The fragmentary nature of your music (I've listened to quite a few of your pieces) results in these stilted phrases that start and stop constantly. There is no way for a larger arc, a sweeping gesture or a long lyrical theme to emerge. This is largely due to the copy paste repetitions of the rhythms,as well as ending each phrase on a strong beat and a tonic or other strong note. This results in music that only gives to me a banal and maybe silly, comedic character. The performance isn't a mystical magical thing that can salvage any situation. Certainly composers have their individual voices and with those they can please only a certain audience, I agree. But an individual voice and works of genius never come from a position of naivety. Individual voices are developed, learned and built upon existing music. If you just start composing without cultural musical context and knowledge, you'll end up on forms and patterns that have been thought of thousands of times before.

Generally really enjoyable piece and seems to be idiomatic for the violin as well! However, if you want to take something else from Bach to keep interest during a solo piece for a violin (writing for solo instruments in a manner as to keep the listeners attention isn't easy), then consider not being only in a single key all the time. Bach constantly uses chromatic motion, secondary dominants and modulations to dominant, usually. Sometimes other keys, such as sub-dominant before the end. This allows for more emotional content as well. Constantly piling on the tensions and releases in this constant rhythmically similar motion that is the Bach hallmark. Since you have a similar idea in having similar rhythmic motion most of the time (especially in the first movement) this seems lacking. As it stands sometimes there is diatonic, tonal motion that doesn't seem to have a clear direction.

Or rhythms, or timbres. Or processes unfolding in time? Music is too pregnant in meaning to be only self contained, even with its inability to be specific about anything. (Other than of course iconic sound signs in the Peirceian sense)

Here is a challenge for you. Write a piece of music where you don't copy paste the rhythm you use in the first bar in the following bars. Perhaps for a duration of the phrase or perhaps during then entire piece. You write in a very formulaic way, perhaps imposing some compositional-technical challenges for yourself will improve your writing.

Hi! It's a joy always for me to score-read and listen pieces with grand scope. After the first listening indeed I found that the dramatic arc in the first movement seems a bit incomplete. The ending came as a sort of surprise to me, I felt that there had been no real climax. of course leaving one part of a multi-movement piece open formally as a "question" is a perfectly valid approach and I can't comment on if I think it works here after only my first listen. I have to say though, I really love the sound-textures in the beginning of the second movement. I feel as if you could have developed the timbral world there even more. Or at least thats what I would have liked to hear. The interplay between pizz. cello and harp in the very start there is something I lament that there is only one bar of. But your thinking is more in terms of melodic development than timbral one, it seems. Definitely an inspiring introduction for me though, I might try to develop something similar myself. At bar 43, 2nd mov, I definitely hear Stravinsky. The attaca from 2nd to 3rd also works really well. Combining the basses of the second movement with the motion in the woodwinds from the first is a cool touch. And then in bar 100 or so at the third movement I am now reminded of Scelsci and his pieces for orchestra that use a single tone. This seems like a very different world from the rest of the symphony. A very banal though as a final first impression of the symphony is that though it's culminations seem to hint at music that is very rhythmically active and high tension and complexity, then most of the time it was slow and reserved instead. Or maybe I have been listening to too much of Printempts recently.

Actually, they are apparently some 19 years old. But yeah, I just discovered them. No sarcasm intended.

A great band I discovered recently. Dave Matthews Band. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHMXCtyEqlM&feature=fvst - may seem like just a pop song, but actually has a pretty messed up structure for one... and my favorite one so far

This Estonian composer - Erkki-Sven Tüür, rules. And I'm not only saying this because he is of the same nationality as me :P He is one of my favorite of today's composers.

I love the main theme. This deserves real instruments performing though...