The chamber - split discussion

Well.. this music doesn’t do it for me.

Too much unpleasant feeling and complexities. If I wanted to get this feeling I'll just go to 42nd street times square and hear all the traffic jams and nuance sounds that the city has to offer. Why create such atmosphere in a piece of music is beyond me. Why people choose to create such bleak and dark sounds? Listen to Nielsen's fifth, he also creates this intense and complex atmosphere in the beginning of his symphony but there is always beauty in it. I think that a composer needs to create that balance between modernism, elegance and beauty. To create music that is complex but yet not overly done. I have come to notice that most modern composers purposely choose to compose bleak works. As if modernism is associated with bleak and beauty is something only of the past.

Anyways I will soon post a work of mine that sounds bleak and yet I tried to maintain the element of beauty in it.

It is called Prelude In C minor for orchestra.

See, Saul, the problem is not about modern music (which is a huge generalisation, to be honest), but to the audience ears as well.

At some point you will need to realise that comprehending such works takes some practice, at least, a little training from the audience perspective (not formal training, god no), and a good will. When you've done none, as it seems, all you see is cleak atmosphere and you can use a metaphor like (going to 42nd street time suares and hear all the traffic jams and nuance sounds that the city has to offer). Like Hymnspace, wanted to do this.

Don't you think there is a chance that you simply need to try a bit harder to "understand" or enjoy music such as this a bit better?

"Claustraphobia and passion", is definately not a traffic jam...

You are doing a great thing, by actually listening to these works and posting, thus you give me a chance to reply to you.

further more people (like Hymnspace) choose to go this way, because maybe the society has changed? Because the world is not only beauty? Because an artist needs to reflect his inside, as his outside? Beauty is certainly not of the past, but someone looking only for beauty in a work of music, could potentially be misplaced, time wise. Not to mention of course, that beauty is totally subjective, right?

In "The Chamber" I do find some qualities that I've met before in my life, and in my music. I feel some sterile light, I see the claustraphobic environment ryan talks about. I know for almost certain that his goal was not beauty, but to portray a part of him self (which makes him most sincere in my eyes), but himself also contains parts of beauty as well. Even if he isn't aware. Exactly like someone could like him as a person, adn see qualities in him, that Ryan himself, could fail to notice. (Same goes for everyone here, probably)

I am looking forward to the prelude of yours

Well I respect everyone's view of my music although Sauls seems a little bit presumptuous in what he feels I was trying to create. The music is the most personal and autobiographical piece I have written, it reflects the inner parts of myself that have caused me most pain. It was also a cathartic experience, reaching the string climax two thirds in where, with no disrespect, the music reaches heights of great beauty. You see, sometimes, in order to appreciate beauty, you have to go to dark places, its the age old yin/yang thing, light and dark and this piece has all of these qualities, particularly relating to claustrophobia and space. The opening is sparse and airy, then it gets constricting and oppressive, then unrelenting as the texture thickens before finally breaking away into beauty, into pure white radiant light. It is like a snake shedding its skin, an organic process in which you must travel into deep dark areas in order to reach a sense of resolution.

I have always been sincere as a composer, not really phased by modern developments, or trying to follow a school of thought and I never wrote this piece with the intention of being modern or 'complex'.

I think technically it is not complex, but musically it is very demanding. The piece is a journey, it is not there to please or comfort the listener but to take them, I hope into my world for a brief moment, to experience it and then to leave.

Maybe you could listen to it again, with less judgments about what you think of modern music but of course I respect if it is not for you.

Thanks for commenting.

Well I respect everyone's view of my music although Sauls seems a little bit presumptuous in what he feels I was trying to create. The music is the most personal and autobiographical piece I have written, it reflects the inner parts of myself that have caused me most pain. It was also a cathartic experience, reaching the string climax two thirds in where, with no disrespect, the music reaches heights of great beauty. You see, sometimes, in order to appreciate beauty, you have to go to dark places, its the age old yin/yang thing, light and dark and this piece has all of these qualities, particularly relating to claustrophobia and space. The opening is sparse and airy, then it gets constricting and oppressive, then unrelenting as the texture thickens before finally breaking away into beauty, into pure white radiant light. It is like a snake shedding its skin, an organic process in which you must travel into deep dark areas in order to reach a sense of resolution.

I have always been sincere as a composer, not really phased by modern developments, or trying to follow a school of thought and I never wrote this piece with the intention of being modern or 'complex'.

I think technically it is not complex, but musically it is very demanding. The piece is a journey, it is not there to please or comfort the listener but to take them, I hope into my world for a brief moment, to experience it and then to leave.

Maybe you could listen to it again, with less judgments about what you think of modern music but of course I respect if it is not for you.

Thanks for commenting.

I have listened to about 4 minutes and I didnt want to go on because its hard for me to listen to this kind of music. Its not you in particular any modern music that sounds like this, even Nick's ' Obsession ' is not for me. I dont enjoy it at all. It has to do with personality and taste I guess.

Note, I didnt say that the composition is bad, I just personaly dont find it appealing.

Best Wishes,

Saul

Ok that's fair enough, although I think only listening to 4 minutes of a 22 minute piece is selling it somewhat short. Do you not feel you did not give it justice by at least hearing half of it? The first 4 minutes are very sparse and require the most concentration. I really would advise you to hear the whole thing simply because the more exposure you get to contemporary music the better it will be for you and your own music.

btw, I didn't imply you thought it was bad, in fact I would never think that of someone's else's music because it is entirely subjective.

Ok that's fair enough, although I think only listening to 4 minutes of a 22 minute piece is selling it somewhat short. Do you not feel you did not give it justice by at least hearing half of it? The first 4 minutes are very sparse and require the most concentration. I really would advise you to hear the whole thing simply because the more exposure you get to contemporary music the better it will be for you and your own music.

btw, I didn't imply you thought it was bad, in fact I would never think that of someone's else's music because it is entirely subjective.

This is the exact point I

This will go off topic, but I can't help it.

saul, what you're talking about is subjective and has to do with you.

You must make the piece sound more interesting in the beginning by adding charm and beauty, Complexity and abstract doesn’t do, its not enough.

Everyone else had no problem with this, at least the people who reviewed and posted.

As an example:

"I went to see a movie called blah but left in the first five minutes. It is one of the worst movies I've seen", you tell the director. What's the most possible answer you'll get:

"Go and see the rest of the movie please, these were the credits you saw only!"

One does not write for the audience, and shouldn't do so. Commercialy they do, and I do actually, but art is not only about that. God forbids if artists follow their fans/audience/followers/whatever will.

I do promise you that if you had heard the whole thing, you would have every right to say all the things you say, but right now, I will have to severly dissagree with what you say, simply because you can't judge by 4/22 of a work! All your points, ALL OF THEM are completely invlalid, even if they stand true, exactly because you will never have a chance to check their validity, by not checking out the whole work.

Next time you do review any work, do listen to the whole of it before posting. Other wise, simply don't post!

This will go off topic, but I can't help it.

saul, what you're talking about is subjective and has to do with you.

Everyone else had no problem with this, at least the people who reviewed and posted.

As an example:

"I went to see a movie called blah but left in the first five minutes. It is one of the worst movies I've seen", you tell the director. What's the most possible answer you'll get:

"Go and see the rest of the movie please, these were the credits you saw only!"

One does not write for the audience, and shouldn't do so. Commercialy they do, and I do actually, but art is not only about that. God forbids if artists follow their fans/audience/followers/whatever will.

I do promise you that if you had heard the whole thing, you would have every right to say all the things you say, but right now, I will have to severly dissagree with what you say, simply because you can't judge by 4/22 of a work! All your points, ALL OF THEM are completely invlalid, even if they stand true, exactly because you will never have a chance to check their validity, by not checking out the whole work.

Next time you do review any work, do listen to the whole of it before posting. Other wise, simply don't post!

Well Nick...I think that 4 minutes is not a short time, there are works that are shorter then 4 minutes. I was speaking about myself , I’m sure that there are other listeners that agree with my comments, maybe not here but I’m sure they exist and if he wants to appeal to listeners that are not so much into this kind of music he should try to throw them something, otherwise they’re simply not gonna like it. The best thing to do when writing a piece of music is to try to write for a wider audience, within the classical music audience of course.

Anyways, I said my comments on what I have heard and not on what I have not heard. Why I didn’t listen to the rest of the piece because for me it was very boring and uninteresting. I cant turn music into something that I don’t like. I have to enjoy listening to music. Music is about Joy and If I don’t get Joy out of it I will not listen to it. The same goes for a book. Would anyone buy a book and spend time reading a book that he has absolutely no interest in and gets any joy or entertainment out of? Don’t you think that it would be much wise and beneficial to spend time on things that will delight your being and soul?

I'm not a psychologist and I dont want to drill into his soul and try to understand what he wants to say with his music. I am a listener that loves music very much and I want to enjoy it. The moment that I will have something that gets my attention only then I will try to listen to it more carefully to know the work better, but if the first spark is missing , I will not continue listening to the work.

Best Regards,

The best thing to do when writing a piece of music is to try to write for a wider audience, within the classical music audience of course.

I disagree. If I wrote my music to be liked by more people [people dislike it already, because it's dissonant and complex and (heh) I don't resolve my dissonances], I myself probably wouldn't like it. If I was to go about writing something particularly ugly, I never say to myself , "this sound ugly, I like it, but will a wide audience of people like it?" . When I'm writing, my first priority is to please myself, not others.

I disagree. If I wrote my music to be liked by more people [people dislike it already, because it's dissonant and complex and (heh) I don't resolve my dissonances], I myself probably wouldn't like it. If I was to go about writing something particularly ugly, I never say to myself , "this sound ugly, I like it, but will a wide audience of people like it?" . When I'm writing, my first priority is to please myself, not others.

I also write what I like, but if you want your music to be loved by all you should take consideration for a wider audience. If not, dont feel bad if not everyone enjoys your music.

Well, I don't feel bad when some people don't like it because that's not my priority anyway. I don't care what others think, when I post music on here, I'm looking for ways that I could improve it to appeal to myself more.

saul you are completely missing the point!

The point is that you cannot understand or judge or review something you don't know in it's entity. In the whole! Like it or not like how can you decide if you like something if you really don't know it? 4/22 minutes? That Is tiny! 2/11 (Obscene Obsession)? tiny again! And feel assured that both works change over time, yet you will not go back and listen. You didn't. By introducing you to my other works, I tried to prove to you that I'm capable of "better" music by your terms and ideals, and that perhaps revisiting the whole work (Obscene Obsession) you could be surprised. Yet you have ignored it thus far and will ignore it in the future.

On the other point made here.

In order for the audience to love you, you need to be true to yourself first of all. And if you do something to please someone else, then you are fake and phoney. :) Under that idea, it's much better to express yourself, which either way is the whole point of art, to express a personal view, not able to do with words, and then think about the audience.

By all means the extremes are not for me either, but it just appears that we have great difference on what extremes we are talking about. I talk about (for example) a quartet for 4 helicopters, by Stockhausen, as extreme and Avant Gard, and you speak about normal works and music that sound and work fine, and actually are also used in wider media like films, documentaries etc...

you persist on beauty etc, but I have just one thing to tell you. while I would never go with a man (for example), and I really don't fancy even the idea, I still have no problem understanding why other people do it, and how they can find beauty in their own sex! I have my wife who I think is the most beautiful creature in the world, but for all I know, most people could find her unattractive! (although she is gorgeous really! :D)

As I said, and you chose again to answer, is that it's not only composers that get trained but the listeners as well. You no longer enjoy the music you enjoyed 30 years ago, do you? When I was 5 I like twincle twincle little star, but not anymore. how come? Why can this idea work on larger and greater terms? Like, for example, to attempt, at least, to get away from Mendy and move to more contemporary stuff, which CAN sound beautiful! If you chose so! If you open your ideas and your mind so!

saul you are completely missing the point!

The point is that you cannot understand or judge or review something you don't know in it's entity. In the whole! Like it or not like how can you decide if you like something if you really don't know it? 4/22 minutes? That Is tiny! 2/11 (Obscene Obsession)? tiny again! And feel assured that both works change over time, yet you will not go back and listen. You didn't. By introducing you to my other works, I tried to prove to you that I'm capable of "better" music by your terms and ideals, and that perhaps revisiting the whole work (Obscene Obsession) you could be surprised. Yet you have ignored it thus far and will ignore it in the future.

On the other point made here.

In order for the audience to love you, you need to be true to yourself first of all. And if you do something to please someone else, then you are fake and phoney. :angry: Under that idea, it's much better to express yourself, which either way is the whole point of art, to express a personal view, not able to do with words, and then think about the audience.

By all means the extremes are not for me either, but it just appears that we have great difference on what extremes we are talking about. I talk about (for example) a quartet for 4 helicopters, by Stockhausen, as extreme and Avant Gard, and you speak about normal works and music that sound and work fine, and actually are also used in wider media like films, documentaries etc...

you persist on beauty etc, but I have just one thing to tell you. while I would never go with a man (for example), and I really don't fancy even the idea, I still have no problem understanding why other people do it, and how they can find beauty in their own sex! I have my wife who I think is the most beautiful creature in the world, but for all I know, most people could find her unattractive! (although she is gorgeous really! :D)

As I said, and you chose again to answer, is that it's not only composers that get trained but the listeners as well. You no longer enjoy the music you enjoyed 30 years ago, do you? When I was 5 I like twincle twincle little star, but not anymore. how come? Why can this idea work on larger and greater terms? Like, for example, to attempt, at least, to get away from Mendy and move to more contemporary stuff, which CAN sound beautiful! If you chose so! If you open your ideas and your mind so!

I view music as something that is constantly with us and around us at every moment in time. Every sound that is produced in the world even at the most distant galaxies can be fitted into the musical scale of 7 notes. As you walk down the street in your city, the bus , the car, the cat, the rain, the bikes , the birds, people around you and virtually all things that produce sound is essentially music. The sounds of nature is music as well. Jewish sources reveal that even the stars and galaxies flow through waves of music. It also says that if man had the ability and the means to listen to the sun he will be enchanted and delighted from the glorious and pleasant sounds that it produces. In the book of Psalms there are verses written by King David that describe the songs and praises that the sun and the stars sing to G-d.

The question is :

If we have music everywhere we walk and everywhere we are then why do we need composers to create music?

Because some people view music as a form of art rather then a passive reality that just exists. They have the urge to create new music that reflects how they perceive this world and how this world inspires them. That is why I don’t like the majority of Modern music. I don’t like music that so much resembles the sounds of this world. Sounds of traffic jams and door cracks. I like music to be new, so fresh that is brought together by the composer to give us a new reality of his perceptions of this world. Sounds can be divided to major categories:

A. Sounds that a composer uses from this world.

B. Sounds that a composer uses that reflect his thoughts and feelings ,his inner world.

In the case of the A category , the sounds that are created based on the impressions of this world tend to be more superficial and obvious.

Sounds that are from category B , tend to be more original and new.

As an example of these two categories of sound lets take Mendelssohn's Hebrides overture. This work of music was heavily influenced by the natural sounds of this world, in this case the ocean. Even though it was written masterfully , it will get boring with time. In fact, I consider this work to be boring for me because it is so similar to the sounds of this world.

Another Mendelssohn work would be his Italian. This work was based on his impressions of an entire nation. You cant pin point to one particular event or place or feeling but it was a combination of many things that effected Mendelssohn's spirit and feelings. Therefore this music came from with In him not relying on the natural sounds of Italy, because nature doesn’t belong to one particular country, but instead he described his feelings about Italy, and the melodies created from this experience are more memorable and stay longer and sound new every time you listen to them.

Another example of 'nature music' is with Rimsky Korsakov's flight of the bubble bee. A very short piece that is ' Fun' and nothing more. There is no great message or feeling to it, and its not a work that need serious listening or understanding , nor it has any real depth or meaning. But his Scheherazade is based not on the sounds of this world but on a story. This piece therefore is more meaningful and touching.

Why am I saying all of this?

It is important for a composer to try to create music that is not found in the sounds of this world because if he writes music that sound similar to the sounds of nature or the sounds of every day life , people will get bored.

But writing something that doesn’t sound like the sounds of this world, will create charm and delight in the listener's mind.

That is the weakness of modern composers that cant (still) find the balance between the sounds of this world and the sounds of their feelings. With that I mean that there has to be an effort made that all the music that you supposedly feel inside of you doesn’t transform only to the sounds of this world (everyday life sounds such as cars, airplanes, nature ) but also to the sounds of the inner world, the thoughts and the feelings.

I love it when people get cerebral just for the sake of being cerebral.

...

I love it when people get cerebral just for the sake of being cerebral.

...

I dont like eating cereal and I also dont want to be a cereal.

:D:angry:

I dont like eating cereal and I also dont want to be a cereal.

:D:angry:

Way to step around that insult, Saul.

"It is better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

Way to step around that insult, Saul.

"It is better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

If he tried to insult me , then he really insulted himself. I didnt say anything wrong in that long post. I wasnt trying to be "cerebral".

If he tried to insult me , then he really insulted himself. I didnt say anything wrong in that long post. I wasnt trying to be "cerebral".

But you didn't exactly say anything that was right, either. You listed a lot of opinions.

But you didn't exactly say anything that was right, either. You listed a lot of opinions.

Well, last time I checked everyone has the right to post their opinions whether they are right or wrong, but no one should be made fun for doing so.

Well, last time I checked everyone has the right to post their opinions whether they are right or wrong, but no one should be made fun for doing so.

I wasn't making fun of you, and neither was Robin. You just said that you didn't say anything wrong, and I'm just saying that you technically didn't say anything right.

I wasn't making fun of you, and neither was Robin. You just said that you didn't say anything wrong, and I'm just saying that you technically didn't say anything right.

Youre right for been wrong, hows that sound?

:blush::w00t::P

Youre right for been wrong, hows that sound?

:blush::w00t::P

try agan and this time use correct speling/grammer kthnx

try agan and this time use correct speling/grammer kthnx

Spelling ? :P

Are you serious?

Are you serious?

You know what?

Youre right.

You know what Saul?

This is getting ludicrous in all honesty.

I post something, and you come to write something almost off topic. You missed the point once again, and no I won't get into your arguments at all, plus I hope nobody else will.

Try to learn to discuss, even through the internet a bit.

Re: your long post, I find most of the stuff you say bullshit.

Next time you feel philosophical, by all means post a new thread, not answer one of my posts.

Next time you feel like posting a review to MY works, please make sure you have heard all the work, and all the effort of months, I've made before you post a review. Other wise simply don't bother. If you can't handle listening to 11 or 22 minutes, don't bother posting to MY works. I will simply ignore you.

Deal?

+ What Robin said.

cheers Robin :)