Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge What are you currently composing?

OK, I'm going to try to listen to everyone's work in this thread little by little. It may take me a while to get to them all.

So far, Derulux, what can I say, wonderful! I didn't get tired of listening to it and the whole time was left wondering what's coming next. Maybe you don't feel like it right away but sometime you should really try to piece it back together or use the ideas in a new work. I'm not typically a huge concerto fan as I'd rather hear solo piano or orchestra without piano but I did particularly like your work.

Thank you, sara! I may yet get back to it someday...but it's definitely on hold now for at least a year or two (or, at least, the first two movements are...I may jump to the third movement and start the finale, but probably not...I think I'm going to take a break from composing and go back to writing for a few weeks/months and really try to get my novel done so I can send it out). Thanks for the encouragement, though.

Johnny,
Nice stuff you've done. I've just begun dipping my toes in the waters of Collaboration Central lately. For collaboration I prefer to do lyrics rather than offer my rather poor-in-comparison talents on the piano. There's not much room there for just lyrics (and sometimes melodies), however, so I'm still watching more than participating. It's nice to hear such superb results in your pieces.
Once I get my solos recorded well I'll post a couple for folks to comment on.
-Hugo

Thanks Hugo

Collaboration Central is a great place. I'll look forward in hearing your work.

Best, John

Good grief, Derulux, I sure hope you have a version of word processing software that allows you to save your work!

The concerto took me about 9-10 days to get to what you heard, working anywhere from 20 minutes all the way up to five hours. I honestly could've done it in an afternoon's time if I could have plugged the notes in faster.

My writing, on the other hand, particularly this first novel of mine, is currently 8 years in the making. I wrote it once. Trashed it. Wrote it again. Trashed it. Wrote it again. Liked it. Started editing. Rewrote five chapters (and I have two more to go). Will continue to edit. Each one of those complete rewrites was over 100,000 words. The novel currently stands at 154,000 words (think "Fellowship of the Ring"), but will probably be a little longer than that when I finish rewriting those other two chapters. All of this on top of the 200+ pages of handwritten background notes on the world and characters, sketches, maps, loose papers of "ideas", geneaology tables, war progression charts, and the 400,000 words or so I have written from the other books in the series.....

There's NO WAY I'm starting that project over. The world will have to end before I lose all of the information/backups of this project. I've made it as certain as possible that I will not lose it. (I save it obsessively when I type...every 20 words or so. :p )

So bearing all that in mind, my writing is saved on my computer, on my parents' computer, on my sister's computer, and on my best friend's computer. They all have different operating systems in case of a random "Y-2xxx-K Crash" or other programming error. I have 3 CD backups in different locations (in different states). I keep seven hardcopies, three of which are in lock-deposit boxes in different countries, in case of a U.S. overthrow, a military coup, or a run on the banks. (One of them is stored safely next to the final chapter of Rowling's "Harry Potter" series.) I also have six jump-drives with stored information, one of which I keep at a lake house in Canada, one is buried in the desert in Nevada (next to Jimmy Hoffa), and one is at the bottom of a tequila bottle in Mexico. The other three are "unmentionables", and therefore, will not publicly be acknowledged. :p

Derulux, I forgot to add on your composition that it is obvious you are good at story-telling and writing as your music was full of suspense, keep you on the edge of your seat, wonder what's going to happen next and where it's headed, suspense followed by calm, just like a good book.

Wish you the best on your book.

Thanks, sara! I actually think I'm going to go write a little bit right now...while I have the idea and the time.

Boy is this a close minded statement. The tragedy is that you think good music is simply a matter of a good sounding melody a bunch of chords and arpeggios. But A) what's a good melody differs person to person and B) music was and is never about that.

Music is simply about expression, communication via sound...organized sound. We can be moved by many different sounds just like we can be moved by many different sights and smells and tastes. Rhythm, balance, harmonie, structure, energy, timbre...so many different things can go into making a piece moving.

Is dissonance ugly? can be. Is the world ugly...you bet.
Is dissonance beautiful?...God yes, some of the most beautiful moments in music are dissonant, beautiful dissonance.

Is a lack of melody a good thing? It is a nessasary thing, why? cause to much melody becomes trite, it loses it's appeal. Do we as humans always communicate using words and sentences and phrases. No. We cry, we shout, we whisper, we gesture, we wink, we nod, we shun...music needs these things as well. Can you have an entire piece with no melody and have it still be emotional? Absolutley, it all depends on how the sound is used.

But to completley blow off modern music because it uses different ways of communication is as ignorant and as close minded as to say we should all communicate using grammatically perfect english language. Neglecting all other forms of communication and languages.

Self-indulgent to the composer? You bet, I hope all composers are self-indulgent...and pianists too. Every musician should be self-indulgent. Say what you want, love it, have it mean something special to you and if it does it will show itself. That is if you are being honest. The best composers in history were self-indulgent in their writings. All of them. Beethoven, Mozart, Liszt, Chopin, Bach, Wagner, Mahler, Prokofiev, Shoenberg, Rachmaninoff...they all wrote for themselves, they were all self-indulgent. Prokofiev loved it when people walked out. Let em walk out.

To say their is only one beautiful style to write in or to try to define beauty in anyway would be the single biggest tragedy in music. Thank God it doesn't work that way.

snap-apple,

I noticed you have been a member since 2003 and haven't noticed you in the discussions in this forum since I have joined. - Hope to see you as a regular participator more often. I agree to some extent that not all music is a matter of melody and harmony. On the other hand, I have heard time after time things "composers" have written (mostly novices) that are nothing but harmony with varied rhythm and have no melody or theme at all. This was basic lesson #1 in a 300 level composition course I took not to write simply harmony. I saw a student in the class writing beautiful harmony better while I wrote nice melodies but didn't know much how to harmonize. He got blasted from the instructor time after time for writing nothing but harmony while I was rarely blasted for my nice melodic pieces with attempts at harmony when I knew nothing about how to add anything else. Of course as you said, there is more to writing music than melody with bass line harmony, but it is a great place to start when one is first trying to compose and has no idea how to get started and like me not really have a good ear for what sounds good just fooling around on the keys.

I kind of am not quite sure what you or signa are saying and I kind of misread both of your posts so mine doesn't make sense in connection with what you are saying. Durulex music doesn't sound at all modern while you seem to be defending the sounds of modern music as more than melody and harmony.

At any rate, I wonder why you came out of nowhere to attack someone else's view who is a regular in the forum when you have not been here regularly all along.

I hope to see you in the forum more often.

Beauty is in the ear of the beholder. Lack of melody is not popular. "Blowing off modern music" is an expression of taste, not ignorance.

You may not wish to accept it but most of humanity prefers melodies, just as we prefer beauty over ugliness.

i don't have disagreement with this.
i never said dissonance is ugly, but without some sort of melodies or themes to support it, it becomes simply non-sense to me (of course not to the composers or selected few). there's a lot of dissonance in Bach's music and i never felt it sounds ugly, simply because of the context within Bach's writing.

i agree, without melodies, a piece would sound less trivial and obvious and recognizable. but isn't that exactly what many modern composers do, and then they'd blame public for lack of education or interest on modern music. i wonder why is that, if many of us simply don't care for such music?

i didn't say all modern music is bad, no, i didn't even say it's bad, but meant only that such music doesn't interest me and i wouldn't want to hear it twice. yes, i believe that some people find pleasure listening to only such music, but it's just i'm not the one among such a group.

the problem with the modern composers' self-indugence is that they simply ignore what fundamental thing that music to most people - the signal of the connection to mind or soul within music. without such connection, nobody cares, whether a piece of music is beautiful, or genius, or whatever, because it simply becomes meaningless.

don't worry about it, sarabande. snap_apple has been around on this forum for long time and he's composer and pianist himself and very good at debating on topics such as this. i actually enjoy reading his post, although i don't always agree with him.

signa, snap-apple,

My apologies to both of you for "interfering". You both raise some really good points and I enjoyed reading what you both have to say.

I'll stay out of it. My main gripe speaking in generalities though are those who just "pop" in every now and then and leave me wondering where they have been on all the other recent threads. I would appreciate hearing the thoughts of those people who appear infrequently more often as typically they have some decent knowledge to impart that they could be a little more generous with those like me who have more to learn. That's what mainly got my dander up. I guess I'm the newbie who should have known better. Again, sorry.

I think it's best to judge each piece of music on its own merit. To state that all Modern/Pop music doesn't hold one's interest is only valid if one has heard it all.

I used to be somewhat of a classical music snob until I realized there was so much more to offer than what I was getting in my own narrow-minded safety corner.

Too much melody becomes trivial – I don’t think so.

Best, John

Hey Sarabande,

I've been a member for a while but I have been really busy lately and haven't posted nor looked at anything in at least 6 or 7 months. But I came back and the post caught my attention.

Signa. Honestly in some ways I am playing a little bit of devils advocate here. I do understand to some extent what your point is...I just hope it isn't as extreme as it comes across.

It's erie how fine the line can be drawn between what is music and what isn't. What sounds good and what doesn't. Sometimes the line is very thin when you'd never think so. Sometimes the technique is born out of what needs to be said.

Take Prokofiev for example. He was sarcastic, barbaric, angry, violent, bent up about the wars amungst him, he was a rebel in school, what kind of music comes from that kind of emotional turmoil? He was the first to introduce the harsh, unmerciful use of dissonance. However passages of bi-tonal music can be found in composers works far before him. Chopin has many moments of harsh dissonace same with Bach...like you mentioned...actual bitonal passages (though they would never be analyzed as such) None the less Prokofiev really gave it to us naked and exposed nothing pretty at all. And people hated it. But now we connect with it...I know I do at some points. For me, a citizen of the U.S in 2006, I need more then say a Beethoven Sonata to really cut loose violently. I mean Beethoven is great, he was considerd ruthless and gross in his day, but now I need something with more bite. More synocopation, more edge, more dissonance, more power. And some of these modern pieces have that bite. By the way speaking of Prokofiev you know for all the unmelodic writing he did, did you know that he is quoted as saying "the most important thing in music is melody."

And aside from just straight up dissonant chords some modern music from the 60's and 70's use stuff that is out of this world crazy and yet has the most profound emotional effect. Like Penderecki's "threnody for hiroshima" 52 strings with unusual extended techniques and all sorts of micro-tonal modern craziness...but it sounds so powerful and moving. Absolutely no melody...no typical harmony, very unpinnable rhythmic material...but it makes a powerfully moving musical statement. No way could any such thing be said using typical harmonies and melodies...this is far more impacting and real.

But it takes a while to let new sounds and techniques soak in. The difference between Bach and Barber are not as big as they seem, yet they are seperated by more then 200 years. The differences between Wagner and Shoenberg are not that big yet many would consider Wagner's music to be far more "beautiful."
The difference between Bach, Liszt, Rachmaninoff and Frederic Rzewski's music is not as big as some would think.

Point is...modern music isn't as random as some would think. It has it's roots, it has it's connection with the world around it...at least the good compositions do. An open mind does a lot of good in becoming a fan. I know from experience because I myself had to learn to open my mind and ears and find it's good points. I stopped laughing off certain things and really tried to find the meaning inside. And much of it is very much a personal and real form of communication.

And it's important to remember that a piece is never meaningless if you yourself truly love it and respect it and if it is honestly your voice. If it is inside you and it begs to come out...if it really is connected to you then it isn't meaningless. The public may not get it...that is true in real life as well. Sometimes people just to get other people and ignore them, it doesn't make the person meaningless. And we would all love to be excepted and popular with other people just like we would love our works to be excepted and popular too...fact is sometimes it is not. Especially if your own ideas our outside the box a little.

So it is as much our job as composers to write for the audience as it is our job as people to live for other people. You live to please everyone you will inevidably fail in life simply because you can not please everyone. Same in music. Can not please everyone no matter what. Even Rachmaninoff with his most beautiful melodies and harmonies and sounds has haters. Even Bach, many people hate Bach. You can not please them all. So don't even try to guess what the public is looking for or what they want...you never know. Write for yourself and if it truly has something special to say it will find a way to live on.

Well, I'm glad your back and to hear another voice here. When I first became aquainted with music of the Modern era, I was a little taken back by it but I saw how enthused the prof.'s were about it (this was 10 + years ago), that I begin thinking there must be something worthwhile there and once I listened more and understood more even began enjoying it. I ended up writing a couple minimilistic pieces that are a couple of my favorites (something I would have never done prior).

snap_apple, i see your point. but considering why certain music sounding meanless to me or others, it's not because we didn't open our ear or mind to listen to it, and we did but it simply sounds nothing but meanings. yes, i see the composer's point too, clever harmonic color and passages, trying to be unique and creative. it certainly means something to the composer who wrote the music. but does it mean anything to me? no, unfortunately no and that's what i call the tragedy of those type of modern music, since the composers are simply not writing for someone else (let's not even include the majority of public), but for themselves. is there genius in such music? i bet it does (and i noticed and not just closed minded), but it still doesn't mean anything. current modern music seems to me loosing clear direction of where it should go, and it seems more confused when it comes down to individuality, new tonal language or techniques and projected sound/music. the point is that if composers stop writing music for others rather than themselves, then don't expect anyone else would accept such music.

I appreciate much of the music by living composers, but it seems there has been a trend of late away from recognizable melodic repetition and development. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I find much of the music by Jennifer Higdon or John Adams potentially interesting yet it fails to hold my interest because it seems like a stream of consciousness. There is no development nor recapitulation of any sort. It's just musical idea after musical idea and for me that loses interest after a while.

This was highlighted at a recent festival of new music locally. I heard an interesting piece for solo cello, but it bored me after a while for the reasons described above. After the concert I heard the composer make a comment about "no repetition of any kind" and it struck me that this must be what they're teaching in music schools these days. Is this the new serialism?
Beautifully said, I can do no better. The advice to write for yourself is crucial to the composer because that's the person you have to live with daily. If you write for yourself then at least you'll have one ardent fan that truly believes in your work (yourself). If you don't then no one will believe in your work and at that point why bother?

Meaningless is a very powerful word to describe art. I don't think your being fair by labeling music you don't enjoy or that your peers don't enjoy as being meaningless. Their are many works I would never want to hear again and that didn't connect with me at all but I would never call them meaningless...I would simply say I didn't feel a connection to the piece. And thats cool, that is what makes us all human, we all like different things and have different tastes.

Their is one big problem in your theory though on audience connection... [q]current modern music seems to me loosing clear direction of where it should go, and it seems more confused when it comes down to individuality, new tonal language or techniques and projected sound/music. the point is that if composers stop writing music for others rather than themselves, then don't expect anyone else would accept such music.[/q]

...and that is...that this is the case at every given moment through out history. In a way it is the meaning of life, certainly the personal challenge for composers and other artists. What do I want to say? Who am I? Why is it important? How does that sound? Life is one big journey, a search for importance and self. Every single composer who ever lived delt with such questions. Every single era has been at one time labeld "modern." Every single modern era has been trashed, ridiculed and misunderstood by the public. Every single one. Our "modern" era is no different from other "modern eras" it was the same stuff over and over again.

The difference is Now...50, 100, 200 years later it has soaked in. We have evolved, our ears have evolved, and what was once shocking and confusing is now tame and pleasent or cool. No reason why 100 years from now our music will sound pretty cool...or in 200 years sound banal and pleasent.

It's important to note that we are always evolving has human beings. We soak up everything like a spounge. The sights we see, the people we meet, the food we taste, it all changes us and allows us to grow. And as musicians...epsecially as composers, the sounds we here really change us, move us, and get us to think. So it's no wonder why composers struggle to say what they need to say. The are constantly searching for every possible sound that says exactly what they want. Is it melodic? How simple? is it angst? How angst? No I'm angry...not that angry? what sounds violent? No really violent I want to scare the heck out of them? ...constantly searching for sounds.

And as sound evolves...think of how sound has evolved throught out history...from monophonic music, to polyphonic, chamber orchestras, symphony orchestras, computer technology, recording devices...as sound evolves we as composers pick up on that and it becomes a part of us. So modern music will usually be shocking to most people who rely on what they are comfortable listening too. Thing is it is the modern composers who instill the new sounds into the public's ear...who push them to hear it. It is the modern composers who provoke the younger generation of composers. And after a while...a long while those modern composers (who are most likely dead) finally become normal.