Anecca

Good point. But what I'm referring to is: if I understand my work in my own way, and if I concede that most will understand it differently as you say, and I like my own work myself, but a large body of people that represent a majority dislike or don't get what I do, and in fact nobody ever likes my own music at any point in time, then what happens? What is it about my mind's own bias over my own creations that make my work inherently valuable to me? Is it possible to look back after some time and listen to the song with a new perspective and then be of the same opinion of those who initially disliked my work? Sorry if this is obnoxious, I'm not sure where I'm going with this haha

Perhaps naive - but what if what I compose makes sense to me but not others?

1. measure 7 With regards to what you said about measure 7, I do see what you say, although to me it sounds refreshing. It's a little difficult to say with words. But when the phrase (in measure 7) beginning with C# is sounded, I liken that to a self-important character trying to assert his "majesty", so to speak, and thus it makes sense to me in that particular way when you relate it to what has been played before. It helps if you think of it with this facial expression, which is close to what I mean (minus the obama - just the expression itself). Does it make sense to you that way too, or does it maybe strike you as something you would describe as being "off"? 2. missing beat in measure 11 Yep, thanks for those observations on the missing stems and being off a beat. I was weirded out a little when I tried to sing the original in my head. 3. your ideas My first impression of the ideas you added make the overall piece more balanced. It sounds pleasing, until I find that after the red measures in the middle you added, there is a rhythmic redundancy between that last read measure and the two following ones - almost as if the piece itself is too symmetrical (from the beginning to the end of these red measures). http://i.imgur.com/hC0qQ.jpg 3-Julian.mp3 It's a little same-y, or same-ish in essence. Do you see what I'm saying? Maybe you have a different perspective, which is why I'm interested in seeing if you agree or disagree with this comment. Nonetheless I really appreciate you doing this :D 4. some core issues I suppose I'm battling with difficult questions, like with my description above of measure 7 (point 1). Is a particular musical passage universally expressive, or subjective (in the obama-expression way that I interpreted)? There are those who say there's truth to both. It's confusing because it does makes sense to me, but to others it could sound off, which makes me doubt whether I can create a sound that can communicate something to others and that I can only see myself. Also, I suppose when something just downright does not make sense to you, as a composer, you can just play with more ideas, modify a few notes here and there and see the result, right? That was a helpful post. Thanks!

Hello everyone! I'm trying to compose once again. Here is this very innocuous, exercise-like composition I made for the piano. Audio here: untitled.mp3 What I would like to ask is this. How would you describe this composition? Does it make "sense" to you, in the purely musical sense? Could it be better, perhaps? And lastly, what criticism or feedback could you give (e.g., the second to last bar has a figuration which sucks, etc.)? Anything will do, even mean comments. (P.S.: Is this the right forum to post this in?)

As composers I'm sure we're all familiar with our ability to spontaneously summon musical imagery in our heads and we can evenly consciously make an effort to direct how this imagery is to be continued and resolved. However - and I'm sure it will be the case - can you listen to music as you're drifting into sleep? When you're between that phase in which you're not quite awake or asleep? I find that if I make an effort to remain conscious during this period, music will naturally flow in my head, with no energy required to make it happen - it happens all by itself. It's music I didn't even know I could create, and it often belongs to a mix of genres. It's nice to think about, because I think that this innate ability suggests that there is something in all of us that can inherently make music, as if it were some natural gift or aptitude. Is it due to alpha waves in our brains? Perhaps some regions in our brains have altered their blood flow as to emphasize these music-producing regions or maybe some other regions have been "tuned down", making other regions stand out? I don't know but this has been bugging me for some time and I would like to know if you have experienced this as well.

When you're commuting, for example. You're on the bus and there's nothing but noise, but you can immerse yourself in your inner cave and think about two or three notes to play with until some greater force takes over and suddenly you're hearing a full-fledged concert. Of course, as an exercise. Or when you're in the loo, or eating. How do make music when you don't sit down to do it? Any cool habits?

Thus I think it's necessary to rethink what reconstruction and artistic interpretation are, since the idea has been challenged; artistic interpretation is, to put it roughly, someone's way of performing a succession of melody, harmony, and rhythm, an act done by adding to this succession details such as variations in tempo and dynamics that make sense to the performer. Reconstruction is something else - initially I defined it as making sense, or understanding music, by absorbing it yourself. However, since reconstruction is nearly analogous in definition to that of artistic interpretation, the definition of reconstruction becomes redundant - so reconstruction must be defined such that it contains a different notion, a different one to that of artistic interpretation. For the purpose of this topic, it could be a compositional set of limits derived from a piece by another composer - the key, the accompaniment form, etc. But in truth I've become confused with this, and at any rate, I think it is what matters the least right now. What matters is that, whatever practice one wishes to embark upon in order to become a better composer, whatever it might be - yields the best results, namely putting you on a path in which you discover something new, that you develop what to you means music. You mentioned that initially you chose to build a foundation by studying the classicists. How did this turn out? I coincide with your view that ultimately, it will be you who will naturally evolve your own musical language, through whichever set of limitations you might choose to use. For this, it is essential to create something new, even if you are somehow imitating other composers. What was it that helped you develop your own musical language, if not studying others' works?

This is essentially what I'm getting at - building something new with old tools. Though I think it's interesting to see how other composers used those tools - what figurations, or motifs, or sequences, or melodies, or songs even - what these elements are, and how their affective quality came to be; at least these things can be inferred or pondered from one's interpretation of the music that's already written. You can't technically ask how some melody was invented, because that's asking where composers procure their own inspiration or methods, and it is different for every one. But by interpreting it, you can get an idea. And in doing so, in pondering the music, though there isn't anything particularly huge going on when you interpret somebody else's music, by the simple act of performing it you "see" the music in you such that you're able to understand it; and then I would argue that something transcendental is going on, because you somehow understand the composer, however imperfectly.

I appreciate both of your responses; only recently did I look at this thread again to see that it had good replies in it :) By the way, I did take a bit better approach to studying counterpoint and am going over the Study on Counterpoint by Fux. It relates to your post quite a bit Maddrummer; many of the things you mention are mentioned in it too.

Oooh, I understand now. That's why there's a 10th on the second example, and a 6th before that. Yes, makes sense. Yeah, haha. You must know it prodigiously to know that the pics I put up were from it :D

To my understanding, when you have a C clef by itself, the little arrow in the C clef designates middle C, and that's easy enough to follow. Check out the first pic, and see the first staff. The C clef is on the first line of the pentagram. This would indicate that middle C is the first line, but then there's a G clef right after: And on the second picture, the C clef is on the fourth line (counting upwards) in the bottom staff. What does the C clef being there mean, if it is to be "negated" by the ensuing G clef? How does the C clef being there affect the performance? Are both staves performed using the G clef, but the C clef designates which octave they are, so that the different melodies have room to play, rather than for them to be performed in a single octave (which would be impossible)?

Do you imitate? For the purpose of learning and practice, how useful do you think is imitation? By imitation I refer to the various ways to imitate or mimic some composer's work, and all this is done to understand the composer's style in a selected musical piece. For example, taking a few measures in a score and after those measures have been played, composing what follows in a similar style; or vice versa, compose a few measures before, and then "entering" the measures you borrowed from the composer. You can make an analogy to literature. By reading, you analyze the parts, and then the sum of the parts to understand both the parts and the whole. Then, you attempt to write in a style similar to your observations. Analogically it is the same with music. In fact, isn't performing somebody else's work an act of reconstruction? When one plays a Nocturne from Chopin, for example, you are making sense out of the music by interpreting it. Would you lack the capacity to understand the music at a musical level, composing would be a counter-intuitive process; indeed, this intuitive capacity of ours to understand music suggests that music is universal, and it is bound by certain rules that can make a certain musical genre appear like a language, and a composer's work his particular style of expressing something, namely beauty, through that language. With this interpretation of music, could you say that genres are languages (Romantic-era music, for example) through which musicians find meaning under the guidance of the rules and the alteration of these same rules? Either way I think it could be useful to imitate somebody else's work, because as we know, performing and interpreting something is an inherent act of analysis and synthesis. I don't hopelessly practice imitation with the intent of some of the composer's talent rubbing off on me; but rather, I hope to find something in me that is common to the composer's thoughts, to come to know my "inner-musician" better. What do you think? Do you find it valuable to study somebody else to understand music better, and become a better composer yourself? How do you do go about doing this, if you do find it valuable?

Right, well it seems like the way you did it start you off with a good foundation. Since I'm after this too, I probably will take you up on those suggestions, if I see no better way; this way seems like a good one.

This is good advice. Though when you say study lots of scores, what do you mean exactly? Do you mean to perform them, or make any sort of analysis for one or more things? If the latter is the case, would you recommend first reading something on analysis (to know how to actually analyze), and then doing the analyses on the scores of my choosing? Sorry to bug you with all these questions, but it seems like you know what you're talking about.

I kind of get it now. This is new, so it'll take some time and more experience with those concepts for it to really sink in. Still, I appreciate your response :)