sterilium

Hello. Weca - I appreciate your kind and very upfront advice. :) Actually this piece was written first for piano then I tried expanding it into a big chamber ensemble. It would probably have been more successful if I stuck to that initial piano version. I guess I rushed myself too quickly and forgot to consider the limitations of each instrument; I thought to myself that if I could stretch those aspects somewhat then it might work; I guess then I was wrong. I do not have any regrets posting the piece in that format, and I really wanted to get myself a reality check. For that, I thank you for your sound advice. I will take your tips to heart and go from there. It is for the purpose of learning that I post my work here, and thanks to your advice that I think my effort is successful in that regard. Impresario - I have the same appreciation for what you had to say. I probably am out of my element when I tried to write this piece. If I didn't do so, I wouldn't learn anything new (at least for me) at all, right? :thumbsup: Gijs - You are very kind to have given such a comment. My writing as of now is sadly flawed. I still have a lot of work to do to put those ideas down on paper well. :toothygrin:

Good day. It's been a while since I posted anything on this site (last one I remember was posting The Virgin's Jewel back in 2008). Anyway, that same year (last 2008), I wrote something intended for a chamber ensemble (flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn, violins 1 and 2, viola, cello, contrabass) based on a theme I improvised on a piano. After elaborating on that improvised theme, it reminded me about what my son calls "Cupcake Land" so I thought of making somewhat of a sound story for chamber ensemble out of it. The piece is entitled "Adventures In Cupcake Land" which is supposed to chronicle the adventures of the imaginary characters my son made up in a place he calls "Cupcake Land" as I try to capture my son's imagination through music. The movements (along with score and MP3) are as follows: I. Welcome To Cupcake Land <MP3> II. The View Over The Horizon <MP3> III. Cupcake Waltz <MP3> IV. The Final Cupcake -- Farewell Cupcake Land! <MP3> Follow the succeeding link to get the entire score for "Adventures In Cupcake Land" - <FULL SCORE> I'm not providing any clues to what the themes represent as I think it would be fun to conceptualize the story from your own perspective as you listen along (in a similar manner that my son does when he's hearing the recording of the piece and doing some imaginative play with it). I do hope all of you enjoy the music and feedback is very much appreciated as it helps me along my path studying music. Thanks.

The fastest time I achieved writing a song was 2 weeks (and it's not "classical"/"serious" music). If we're talking about really "serious" music of considerably ambitious length, it could takes around 2 months the fastest to about a year (or more) for me.

I believe you're not at fault if you're a composer who can't play his own work. What's more important, I guess, is you have a complete concept in your head about how that composition is supposed to be played, knowing the limits and the properties of the instrument, player, or ensemble you are writing for. I think a lot of composers can't really play the stuff they write out; however, it's good at least if you can play out your composition on an instrument of your choice and competency even if it's not at performance level. I also think that if you really want to be able to play your own piece with your own instrument, it's just the same as approaching another piece of music although I believe that you'll be able to learn it easier than most since it's your own work anyway.

A 9th is as far as I can go on the piano, and that's pretty much a stretch for me (I have small hands). Octaves are the most reasonable stretch I can go without compromising my performance. If I have to go farther than 9ths. I have to break the notes apart, kinda like detached octaves. At least Jon's hands will get bigger in time. I'm an adult so my hand span is pretty much fixed.

Yes, it's true that some are doped out but if you had the statistics for that then much more people will believe you. You can also note that some classical composers have been under the influence of a drug of some sort (it is thought that Berlioz had an opium trip prior to writing Symphonie Fantastique, Mussorgsky was an alcoholic; alcohol in a technical/medical context is a drug). As said by some of us here, intellectual capacity has nothing to do with a person's economic situation. Though wealth and status may bring about more opportunities for intellectual growth, sometimes it's within the low economic classes that some of the greatest minds emerge. Would you think that Franz Joseph Haydn, who was always hungry during his childhood, had a low intellectual capacity just because he came from a poor family? If you have studied music carefully, you'll know that much of classical music valued improvisation. Allow me to provide examples: > Baroque music had avenues for improvisation (e.g. Basso Continuo). > Bach was known during his time as a great improviser > The Cadenza > Chopin wrote most of his pieces out of improvisation. > Indian classical music (and much of music from Asia) is highly improvisational in nature, yet it has complexities and intricacies (e.g. the Raga) I hope that could enlighten you.

It has to be the clarinet for me. The coloristic possibilities and the range are aspects that you could appreciate in it.

Hmm, seems you have some options out there. I think the best choice for you would be to pursue something more practical for a living. I mean go ahead and be that computer geek (hey, you got to get the means to feed yourself and finance your musical activities first) BUT don't give up on your musical aspirations. Look at it this way. It's an uphill battle to compose for a living. You'll need to have a good network of people and connections to improve your chances of success. If you look into the business side of it (and I think most would agree) that getting your compositions out there costs money. Unless you have good financial backing, you'll have to make sure that any time you try to get a work out should be worth the buck. So go ahead and have that perseverance but make sure it's within practical means. Making a living as a performer might be easier, especially if you're very competent. Since you can play the bassoon, you might as well stick it out as a bassoonist. If I were to make an estimate (rather inaccurate one), there might be 500 pianists to a bassoonist so I could be easier to make a successful career being a bassoonist that a pianist (unless you're Lang Lang or Cecile Licad or Rubinstein). Among your options, the easiest (and most stable) way to make a living would be computers. What's more than that, you'll have an advantage by being a computer geek and a musician. It's also a fact that there some distinguished composers in history had "day jobs" besides being a composer. Let me give you some examples: The Russian Five had day jobs. For example, lexander Borodin was much more known as a chemist (he described himself as a "Sunday Composer"). Iannis Xenakis was an architect. Charles Ives had a great career as an insurance executive. You see, it's a possibility that you can have a "day job" yet be prolific as a composer. I myself have a day job but I haven't quit on composing and trying to improve my technique on musical instruments and other musical activities. Who knows, you might end up having both careers. :D

Well said. If you have the opportunity to have a teacher then grab it. If out of necessity you don't have a teacher available for you, you can start reading up and learning indirectly (where I come from, there are NO composition teachers within my proximity that I know of). I think youngcomposers has interactive lessons for members who want to learn being given by other members who are teachers so that's a good start instead of having none at all right? Besides, you won't get to have your own method and voice unless you get to have some grassroots of sorts.

You can have a tape recorder or an MP3 player/recorder that has a capacity to record audio in hand. Once you're in that humming mood, hit that record button. When you have your "hum" recorded, transcribe it down and then do the rest of the processes (maybe applying counterpoint, making variations, orchestrate, etc.) I guess that's the best way to solidify those ideas. :toothygrin:

Yeah, I get that block sometimes as well. The sad thing is there is no definite and scientifically proven way to get you inspired. It just suddenly hits you. I'd agree with most of the people here that you can try looking at your themes/motifs and making some variations, a sketch maybe here and there, and see what you can come up with. Sometimes you'll end up with something pretty interesting in return. You can also try searching for more stimuli. It could be a fantastic meal in an exotic restaurant, a place you've never been to, a good movie or whatever. You might get something in there that has some relevance to your present material. Who knows, such experiences might hit you with that sudden creative energy everybody's craving for.

Hmm let's see. For piano, I'm trying to learn some Chopin etudes (Op. 10 #1 and #12 to be precise, off and on, depends on my schedule really) but not for the sake of performance though. It's more of technique development for me (e.g. to improve on my improvisational "vocabulary") as well as trying to look into Chopin's compositional style. :) It's a shame though that I can't put much focus into learning pieces as I split time between family, my day job, composition, and piano technique. How I wish I had much more time in my hands.

Except for Rhapsody in Blue, An American in Paris, and his Piano Concerto in F, I know only little about him, but the three pieces I mentioned I can conclude that he had his own voice that I find no point in trying to find out whether he leans to Classical or Jazz. To plainly say it, it's all music. Really wonderful honest music.

Good point. :thumbsup: Let's illustrate this with some concrete examples. If there weren't any "wrong turns" happening, we might have all missed out on Debussy, Bartok, Schoenberg, Varese, Xenakis, and Zappa. That's all of the examples I can think of as of this moment's notice.

It's certainly a delight to be able to teach oneself to do something but it certainly is of very high value to have someone teach you or guide you. One thing that is very important about having a teacher is that of instantaneous feedback. You can easily correct mistakes, unlike teaching yourself where you do have the tendency of developing bad habits and realizing mistakes much later. You see, teachers/instructors have "been there" so to speak. They have tried things for themselves and they know (most of the time) what works and what doesn't so those who need a teacher don't have to short change themselves as being mediocre. About the concept of being snobbishm I think "snobbism" works both ways. There's certainly a snobbish air with regard to autodidact people (I'm hugely self-taught by the way) and there is also a snobbism among those who are formally educated, those who have master-to-apprentice lineages, or those who have degrees. For one thing, I think having a teacher has demonstrable advantages such as getting immediate feedback and having more avenues to get your work out instead of just sweating it out on your own. All in all, it somehow boils down to what works best for you in terms of learning. For some people, the freedom found in teaching oneself is a delight because it does not put any pressure on them by following a rigid structure. For others, however, having a teacher is much more effective because the structure keeps them secured into a definite learning path. If you're really serious about it, I think learning things on your own and having a teacher will work. :toothygrin:

With regard to the original post, I think it's best to start out small the progress on to larger forms with more instruments until you reach the point where you can competently write for an orchestra, but it wouldn't hurt to try out doing some of the large stuff. It's also a big help to even try out first performing solo then with an ensemble or a band even so that get to have a perspective being a member of an ensemble, trying to read and play out parts so that once you test the waters writing for two or more musicians, you have a better idea and a more realistic approach. Just some my thoughts on this issue.

Thank you very much. It makes me happy that you all enjoyed my work. :D

No modernist/avant garde composers?:( I would have voted for Varese or Debussy. Oh well, I guess this is limited to those common practice composers.

Well, for one I respect your opinion regarding Telemann so I will not try to dissuade you from it. Of course, Bach is hands down superior to Telemann (Mass in B minor and St. Matthew's Passion seals the deal). In a manner of speaking, I could comment on how unfair it must have been for Bach who was less famous during their time but more talented. You might say that both of them sound "samey" so to speak and compared to Bach, I agree that his music is forgettable but I happen to enjoy some of his chamber works (sorry I forgot the titles of the ones I really like) and his horn concertos plus I have a lot of admiration for the largely "unschooled" composers such as him, most of the Russian 5, Xenakis, and Takemitsu for example. I also happen to think that he is a lot less boring that you might say Vivaldi perhaps. This is just a matter of my personal subjective preference so, as said, I respect your opinion and I won't try to convince you otherwise. :D Oh, and since this is a spot for a favorite composer forum, I'll include Fr. Antonio Soler as well since I love his fandanggos for harpsichord.

Hearing a story in any piece of music is a highly individualistic experience. The "story" of a piece you may hear in a certain programmatic piece (let's say for example Mussorgsky's Night on Bald Mountain) may be different from my story. Even if the composer intends certain themes to represent certain characters, if you have no access or you have not read the program or if you have no knowledge of the title at all, it is highly probable that you'll end up with a different story altogether than that of the composer. Or to put it in another light, let's say you hear "Bald Mountain" for the first time and you don't know the title. Probably, you'll get the impression that the piece is somewhat scary but would you for certain identify which motives represent Chernabog or which measures would play out the chatter of the witches? You might think that those tremolandi, trills, and certain fast passages in that piece could sound like flies or insects buzzing instead of chattering witches. This is the reason why composers associated with program music needed to include a programme for their audiece to read so that these listeners would know what the music is all about (this to account for, as stated earlier, highly individualistic perceptions and interpretations). I think some composers had the goal of being able to put in concrete ideas to their audience with their music (I for one am guilty of that goal but have yet to realize it, which could be something impossible). If I can recall things correctly, I think that Debussy once had the idea of having his pieces played out without the audience knowing the title or programme to see if the audiece could figure out what his pieces were all about. I would assume that it could have been a failed effort (unless his audience had some idea about it one way or another).

My musical goal is to make music that is so compelling that everybody would seek it and willingly (take note of the term "willingly") renumerate my effort, no matter how obscure or rare it is. Hahaha! :evil: Kidding aside, as much as what I'm about to say is cliche, it is enough that I could express myself through music and have an audience listening. P.S. In one way or another, some jokes are half meant (refer to first paragraph):laugh:

Thanks Grainger. I'm glad you liked it. You're right to assume that I'm a Frank Zappa and Dream Theater fan (it must have been the drum parts that seemed DT-ish).

Hey Oingo, thank you very much for your comments regarding the score. To be honest, this is an area that I need to work a lot on. If I get enough time, I'll revise it so that it would be easier to read. Actually, I've been waiting for a comment such as yours as I'd like to be able to make a good score for my works. :thumbsup: As for the brass multiphonics, I thought that it would sound a little bit different rather than add additional players. However, your point regarding that is spot on correct. :) Thank you, thank you, thank you. :toothygrin:

Given the space that you have, I best thing I could suggest would either a Casio Privia or M-Audio Pro Keys 88 hooked up to your computer via MIDI with an awesome sounding plugin, such as Native Instruments Acoustic Piano. M-Audio is easier to hook up to a computer as it supports USB but can also be connected via traditional MIDI; you just have to make sure your soundcard is also good for the purpose like the M-Audio Delta series. You might want to try Yamaha Clavinovas (the later models) or a Technics PR series (Has awesome piano samples that could knock the socks of those from Roland, poor polyphony though around 32 to 64 voices).

There are times when improvisation over a chord progression does give really interesting results. You can try either recording your improvisations or write them down then select which ones are the most pleasing to you. I usually take this approach when I'm trying to do solos on the guitar or piano (I believe most musicians do this) then take in what was the best take during the recording. Once you're satisfied, you can notate it, identify the theme/s then make more variations to make things a lot interesting. It also helps a lot if you now have an idea of how the rhythms of your composition will go. There are times that the rhythms have a big impact in your melody making decisions (take indian classical music for example). :thumbsup: