last life

i don't hate composers

Music by the so-called "New Complexity school", by which I'll assume you're referring to Ferneyhough, is written with extreme attention to the instruments technical abilities. I doubt there is any piece, at least any mature piece, which is remotely possible on another instrument. The structure of his, many of his, pieces are so intimately tied to the specific timbres involved that it's impossible to re-arrange them without fundamentally altering the piece. You also bring up another point, when you claim the pieces are "impossible"... ...Ferneyhough's music is no more impossible than a "completely accurate" representative of a bar of even eighth notes on a single pitch. The very physical nature of sound production on an instrument makes it impossible to play completely evenly in time, and completely evenly in pitch. Performers attempt to perform Ferneyhough's music as accurately as possible, as they would any piece. There is no ideal "perfect" realization of any music, only many variations and interpretations. I think the fact that many of the world's top ensembles are attracted to performing Ferneyhough's music speaks to how it is very appealing to top players, rather than disrespectful. And anyone who listens to these performances, really listens (closely, you have to), can understand the value of such richly detailed music. I mean really: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGUvn_OkSfw&feature=related The quality of that recording is questionable though.

Yes because music is pointless regardless of whether music has emotions or not.

As has been said, wonderful piece! I particularly love the piano cadenza, that was just an amazing moment! I don't know how I feel about all the tremolo, some of the places where you had it, I think it might be been nicer to just have had straight tones. I see a fair amount of sul pont, which works well, but there's only two real spots where you marked sul tasto, and one with the mute. I think a few other spots would work great with some sul tasto, or maybe flautando, like mm. 102 for instance. But the orchestration is really great in a lot of places, 44 for instance is great. As for the program, I wasn't really feeling that this piece was that organic in it's evolution. All the stopping and starting, and some of the repetition might of made me feel this way, but it's really a feeling, not a deduction or anything. I agree that it feels underdeveloped a bit. Fantastic piece!

As everyone said it's a very nice piece, I like the ensemble also. I found my self hungering for a little tutti somewhere in it. When you get the 16th notes in, it really seems like it's going to build up more, which I think you should satisfy at some point. I'm not really convinced that it's in 5/4. If you want I can take a closer look at it, but it seems the accent notes are changing place a little to often to establish the meter. If the barlines are just to coordinate (and not real meter), you should just use 4 beats between each line. Very nice though!

This is a recording, I made, of a piece I wrote in collaboration with the other three performers, who also appear on the recording. I came to them with a few rough sketches for the form (climaxes, ideas for motivic development and transformation etc.), and the first 3 and last 5 minutes pretty much entirely pre-written, and then we worked out the middle as a group (and changed a few things in the beginning and end). The guitars are all in scordatura (with the lowest pitch string highest on the page, as it is on the guitar, scientific pitch, then cents (1/100th of a semitone) up or down from 12-note equal temperament, rounded to the nearest cent for here): Guitar 1: D2 +/-0 F#2 - 14 Bb2 + 40 D3 +/-0 F#3 - 14 Bb3 + 40 Guitar 2: Eb2 +5 G2 -30 B2 +6 Eb3 +5 G3 -30 B3 +6 Guitar 3: E2 +4 G#2 -48 C2 -32 E3 +4 G#3 -48 C3 -32 Guitar 4: F2 -3 A2 -2 C#2 -12 F3 -3 A3 -2 C#3 -12 The guitars are tuned to the first 12 unique pitch classes in the harmonic series of D (the lowest open string), except for a second tritone (+23 cents) and minor 6th (-27 cents), so that you get a 12-note scale similar to 12-tet. In other words, all the odd partials from 1 (fundamental) to 27 except 23 and 25. These harmonics are then transposed into the lowest 2 octaves near the fundamental (though of course they can always be played higher through the use of harmonics, and freting). The scale looks like this (reading from lowest to highest), with cents different from 12-tet again: D2 +/-0 (gtr. 1) Eb2 +5 (gtr. 2) E2 +4 (gtr. 3) F2 -3 (gtr. 4) F#2 - 14 (gtr. 1) G2 -30 (gtr. 2) G#2 -48 (gtr. 3) A2 -2 (gtr. 4) Bb2 + 40 (gtr. 1) B2 +6 (gtr. 2) C2 -32 (gtr. 3) C#2 -12 (gtr. 4) then of course another octave of open strings, and then another of freted notes, then two or more (depending on the players) octaves of notes available with harmonics. So you have 5-6 octaves of range) Then you have the frets, allowing this scale to be transposed to all of the 12-tet notes, along with many other possible intervals. There are 144 intervals per octave, after the first octave, not including all the additional intervals available with harmonics. As for the piece it self, it's a heavily structured improvisation, or open composition (as all compositions are really...) With some sections more set than others, ranging from every aspect under pre-coordinated control (pitch, rhythm, dynamics, timbre etc), to sections of nearly free improvisation. The sections flow into each other in a variety of ways, and some are inter-related in various ways, others are not (at least not intentional, I'm sure they are). The piece starts at a high, tension-filled, point of loud dynamics and only indeterminately pitched sounds, and moves to a relaxed ending with only pure tones (mostly harmonics), generally softer dynamics, and a slow overall tempo, though not in a strictly linear way of course. I can't post a score, because it is handwritten, and I don't have a scanner (it's also in pencil). But alot of it might be difficult to understand, because it was more shorthand for the performer/composers, to save space on the music stand. Besides, I think it is much more interesting not knowing the processes used to create each section, and to just listen to the music as music. Hope people listen, and I would love any kind of feedback, or criticism! I'm sure this post makes little sense, so if people want more information about anything, just ask, and I'll do my best to explain (which I'm obviously not so great at doing). Ah also, we recorded this onto a tape 4-track (old), for fun, so there's a far amount of tape hiss, hopefully this won't bother you, I find it soothing personally. Piece for Four Guitars

I'm sorry that was some pretty awful advice. I just think more variety in all aspects will get you closer to the serial aesthetic.

No I don't mean make your rhythms 'modern' or 'irregular'. Take a look at how Debussy handles rhythms, or Mozart, Beethoven, or any great composer in the romantic era. It's also the larger idea of pacing, and how the material is developed, which is a part of why it feels so square. Also the overuse of just transposing a motif over and over, especially as the movements go on, gets tiresome and repetitive. You can't ignore rhythm, even very simple contexts, it's very important. Look at the music of Satie, can't have simpler rhythms than that really. Still there's often unpredictability on some level rhythmically, otherwise there would be no point in listening. I mean rhythm more broadly. On the micro level of each note, it's fine to do what you do. On the scale of phrases and sections, you can't be completely predictable (in this style, obviously if you were doing something minimalist, it would be different, but it doesn't seem like you're going for that). Look at Bach (ARCH EXAMPLE), sometimes very unpredictable (yet always perfect). This isn't a good explanation, because I'm just trying to explain why I get bored when listening: a feeling. I just try to understand those feelings. If you want me to hide the way I feel about your music, then I will, but personally I find other people's negative reactions the most helpful thing. Of course you could just ignore what I say, but you did ask for suggestions.

I'd say these don't work very well because there's not enough interval variety. Also what that other guy said. You need to specify up and down pizz. in the second movement. Some of that fast stuff is awkward/impossible. I like the 3rd movement better, but they're both boring. You gotta ask you're self: why I am I writing in a 12-tone style? It's been done to death already.

I never realized butterflies were in 3/4. Gr8 peese.

Score it up for the deaf people! The piece is good. The Fur Elise reference sucked.

It's very nice! I suggest you listen to more music that isn't film music.

TIPS: STUDY FUX

The Larghetto was the best, even with all the repeats. I think it would be better if you varied the second A and B instead of flat out repeating it. Even just some simple re-orchestration, maybe some pizz. maybe some unexpected new harmonic turns. Even with the repeats, the predictability works for this kind of stately movement. The last chord should be held longer. The first movement, if it's supposed to be a 'crazy movement' could be way more crazy. Right now it's kind of dull. Sometimes things happen suddenly, but it just seems awkward, not shocking. The last movement has a great opening. But then I didn't like it as much, general predictable. The material first appearing at 64 is really cool harmonically, though I feel the piano could be doing something better. It's mainly the extreme rhythmic squareness which bothers me (except in the second movement, where it works). I know people have mentioned this before, but I would really consider working on it, because I think the rhythmic inflexibility is holding your music back.

Pretty good, but I think you could have done more to make it interesting, because the song looses a lot with out the words and the highly produced arrangement.