# My Nocturne - New Age/Classical Hybrid



## Captainnumber36

Certainly embracing Chopin's take on this compositional form, I have taken his overall mood and added my own stylings into the piece such as syncopation normally found in funk and typically absent in Classical music.

Hope you enjoy, I look forward to hearing your comments!






:tiphat:


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

The chords don't make sense. At least not to my ear.


----------



## Captainnumber36

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> The chords don't make sense. At least not to my ear.


How do they not make sense?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Sigh, I do love certain eras of Classical Music, especially the romantic/impressionistic years and am heavily inspired by that, but it seems my compositions don't really fit in here too well. The main visitors of this section of the board do not like what I produce so I think I'll just stop sharing it here.

This isn't a pity party or anything, I'm just realizing the truth. My values about music are more suited for a New Age audience, I'll have to find a New Age board to share my music on. Anyone know of any?

Thanks to all who have supported me,
Captain


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

Captainnumber36 said:


> How do they not make sense?


They just don't resolve. I can't quite describe it.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

And best of luck to you in the new age department


----------



## Captainnumber36

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> And best of luck to you in the new age department


Thanks, !

:tiphat:


----------



## Vasks

Actually, this is Classical (quasi-Chopinesque). I don't hear any New Age at all. And a better title would have been something like "A Sad Waltz".


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> Sigh, I do love certain eras of Classical Music, especially the romantic/impressionistic years and am heavily inspired by that, but it seems my compositions don't really fit in here too well. The main visitors of this section of the board do not like what I produce so I think I'll just stop sharing it here.
> 
> This isn't a pity party or anything, I'm just realizing the truth. My values about music are more suited for a New Age audience, I'll have to find a New Age board to share my music on. Anyone know of any?
> 
> Thanks to all who have supported me,
> Captain


Nonsense bro. Forget New Age. This is not a new age piece. I know where you're going with this piece. You're right hand sort of carries a melody but sometimes the left hand doesn't always quite play the chord I think you are looking for with the right hand melody, but it is still a related chord or related key, so it doesn't sound wrong really. Sometimes your melody is lacking and just rambling. You just need to refine this, but quite a bit.

Don't use the New Age thing as an excuse bro. Keep listening and analysing the music you hear. You will pick stuff up. Do you read music, and did you take some basic rudiments of music before? When you learn a song by Mozart, Beethoven, or Chopin, you can really dig into the heart of the music, if you follow the melodies/harmonies along, and after a while you notice certain conventions.

Like I said before in another post, when you break conventions you have to be very careful, because it is DEFINITE the great composers chose to do things a certain way for good reason, maybe 90% (just throwing a number I feel is in the ball park) of those shouldn't be broken. Just going to a New Age site is running away.

Back to that thing about theory getting in the way. I think those that succeed without theoretical background in more complex music like Classical is probably none. Vangelis is New Age, Yanni is really some kind of lighter pop like Frank Mills / Richard Clayderman, and even Paul McCartney failed when he wrote Classical. And these are the best or most well known. The more complex the harmony, like Chopin (this isn't 3 chord pop), the more necessary to have a sound musical background. There is just no winging it. Be patient, listen and analyse more first. You are still a newer Classical listener, and haven't gotten to some more modern stuff. I used to hate that stuff when I learned piano which was a lot more classical based that nowadays (They threw pop and Jazz into the curriculum) and my ear got more used to more dissonant and advanced harmony.


----------



## brianvds

Well, I for one cannot really hear anything obviously "wrong" with the harmony here. What does that even mean? I would agree with Phil though in that if one wants to compose classical, one should make a thorough study of theory, either by studying from books, or at least by listening to enough classical music (and perhaps studying scores) to get a grip on the rules (and _then_ you can start breaking them!  )

Years ago I was on a classical music mailing list, and there was a young man who wrote pretty neat little symphonies and sonatas in Mozartean style; he told me he never studied theory formally, but he studied lots of classical scores to get a feeling for the rules by which they worked. So there is more than one way to do it, but to compose classical it seems to me it has to be done in some way or other.

If one doesn't have that background, it seems to me better to keep it simple and melodic, precisely like the kind of thing Yanni or Vangelis does.

Not that I pay much attention to the above advice myself. 

Anyway, keep on composing and keep on posting them here. It doesn't matter if they are not liked by this or that person. It's impossible to please everyone.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I just feel I'm getting more responses stating my music is too simple and not Classical music than those supporting me. I'll never give up on music, I'm just trying to figure out who I'm trying to compose for.

I do feel lots of my stuff is New Age, some of it is more Classical like this one.

I'm just getting the impression I don't fit in here too well, I feel I'm getting lots of poor reviews.

I'm not exactly sure how to move forward.


----------



## brianvds

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just feel I'm getting more responses stating my music is too simple and not Classical music than those supporting me. I'll never give up on music, I'm just trying to figure out who I'm trying to compose for.
> 
> I do feel lots of my stuff is New Age, some of it is more Classical like this one.
> 
> I'm just getting the impression I don't fit in here too well, I feel I'm getting lots of poor reviews.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how to move forward.


Yeah, I can imagine that constant poor reviews can be pretty disheartening. On the other hand, they might be a good thing too - after all, lots and lots of works that are today acknowledged as masterpieces initially got very poor reviews! 

I have been trying to follow my own advice in my own compositional efforts, which I have taken up again after many years of silence, which is to say, try to stick to a New Age sort of aesthetic rather than a classical one. I learned this from experience; I have always loved classical music, so naturally, when I started composing I tried to compose classically. But my work in that idiom was never satisfactory; it sounded all wrong. And it's not difficult to see why: I lack the theoretical knowledge to write good harmony, and lack any ability whatever to write counterpoint.

Now with New Agey stuff, if you have a pretty little melody, you can harmonize it in the simplest ways, including even just single notes, and it will still sound satisfactory. Might even be pretty great stuff; think, for example, of some of Enya's piano solos. (Though I'm sure they would also be shot down in flames here  )

So that is what I tried to do, but the problem is, one cannot escape one's influences. If you composed your pieces in 1850, the harmonies would perhaps all have sounded "correct" because you would not have been exposed to anything else. But one cannot have been exposed to 20th century music without being profoundly influenced by it. I would think that if you want to create "correct" harmony intuitively (as opposed to making a formal study of it), it might be an idea to confine your listening to Classical period work like Haydn and Mozart for months on end; avoid exposure to anything else. But who would want to do that?

Anyway, because I listen to so much classical music, I can't help myself when trying to compose: before I know it, the work begins to display elements of the classical approach, even when I deliberately try to stick to bland, smooth sounds. Like you I am of course also hampered by my very limited abilities as pianist (if people here think you are bad at playing piano they should see ME! )

On the other hand, "New Age" is a broader umbrella than people think. It doesn't absolutely _have_ to be velvet smooth; within the genre, there are also some quite experimental composers at work. I think, for example, of the work of Popol Vuh, which I recently discovered. And think of some of Vangelis' more exotic soundscapes. Of course, some would argue that those do not belong to the New Age category, but whatever: point is, no one would call them classical, and presumably a lot of their harmony is also either "too simple" or plain "wrong."

Anyway, some years ago I looked around for a New Age message board similar to this one, without success. I don't know if the situation has since changed. As far as I am concerned, you are most welcome to keep right on posting here; when it comes to solo piano music, no one can precisely define what exactly is classical and what isn't. In both classical art and classical music, you will inevitably run into very snarky comments, especially if you dare post your stuff without having paid your dues in years of theoretical study. It's one of those things.

Now this post is getting too long, but I'll note one more thing: I find it interesting how attitudes toward untrained work has diverged between visual art and music over the past century. In visual art, so-called "naive" or "outsider" art (i.e. art produced by artists with no formal training) was enthusiastically embraced by conventional "serious" art; Picasso famously admired the art of children (as do I, for that matter) and of the original "naive" artist Rousseau. Thus, in visual art there is no very clear distinction between "serious" art and mere pop art.

This seems not to have happened in classical music circles: there are, to the best of my knowledge, no recognized "naive" classical composers. Composers without theoretical knowledge are relegated to the multifarious categories of "popular" music.

So: on the art board that I belong to, I get enthusiastic responses to my decidedly non-classical art; here, I have no doubt, my attempts at composition will be met by the same derision as yours (because whatever else you can call my awkwardly congealed little pieces, classical it ain't ) In fact, I have no idea how I would classify them.

Well, so be it then. I suppose it is easy for me to talk though, because my goal with composition is actually not primarily musical. As I reported in another thread, I want somewhat bland music to accompany slide shows of art; nobody is going to listen to the music very intently in the first place, so I could not possibly care less whether it is "really" classical, or what professional composers and critics think of it. As long as it earns me a few "likes" on YouTube, it will have served its purpose! I guess you could call me the Donald Trump of music: I don't care whether Herr Professor Doctor van Beethoven likes it, as long as it makes money.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I read your whole post, thanks for your kind and supportive anecdotes and words of support! You should definitely keep composing if it makes you happy!


----------



## brianvds

Captainnumber36 said:


> I read your whole post, thanks for your kind and supportive anecdotes and words of support! You should definitely keep composing if it makes you happy!


Something that occurred to me now: perhaps what irritates some people here are the new threads for every new composition. Perhaps you should simply start a single thread for all your work, because then people know that's your thread, and the ones not interested in your work can avoid it. They can then also not complain that you clutter up the board.


----------



## MarkMcD

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just feel I'm getting more responses stating my music is too simple and not Classical music than those supporting me. I'll never give up on music, I'm just trying to figure out who I'm trying to compose for.
> 
> I do feel lots of my stuff is New Age, some of it is more Classical like this one.
> 
> I'm just getting the impression I don't fit in here too well, I feel I'm getting lots of poor reviews.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how to move forward.


Hi Captain,
You say that you're not sure how to move forward, but lots of people have tried to tell you, myself included, how to move forward, and the is simply by studying as much as you possibly can, and practice, practice, practice. There are NO short cuts and most of the better composers here have been studying and practicing for years and years, and most of them started out where you are now.

Don't bog yourself down with finding out what genre you belong to, just go with whatever idea comes to mind and follow it.

This piece is more classical in nature that anything else, but so what? It's music, and that's all it needs to be. The problem, as I've said before, is that you don't yet have to tools to make it better music. That will come in time if you really study. There are lots of youtube videos on music theory so you don't have to wade through long boring books on the subject, but you DO have to have at least a basic understanding of harmony, counterpoint and melody writing.

Your music is at a very early stage in your development, and so the reviews you're getting, are reflecting that level. As you develop, so will your music, and so will your reviews, but that's the least thing to worry about at the moment.

You are a very prolific composer, posting new things at least once a week, most others have worked on their compositions for months, how can you expect to compare something dashed off in a few days, to something a more experienced composer has spent months on?

As I said in my last message to you, you really have to start to write things down, you can never hope to make your music more complex, more developed and therefore more interesting, without the ability to work and rework and rework the same piece, until you have some way of holding it outside of your head and manipulating it.

Being prolific is only good if what you're producing is of a much higher standard, try to spend a month with one piece instead of creating four or five new pieces in that time. It really will pay off.

Mark


----------



## Art Rock

Vasks said:


> Actually, this is Classical (quasi-Chopinesque). I don't hear any New Age at all. And a better title would have been something like "A Sad Waltz".


This is spot on in my opinion. I like this piece.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Art Rock said:


> This is spot on in my opinion. I like this piece.


Thanks, I feel the works I wrote when I first started composing are more Classical influenced because I was still in lessons and my mind hadn't been "corrupted" by non-classical works.

I think it's just a matter of taking more time with composing and immersing myself in classical music listening of what I enjoy.


----------



## MarkMcD

OK Captain,

Since you haven't answered either of my last two messages to you, it's obvious you don't want my attempts to help. No worries, I won't comment any more on your work so no need to worry.


----------



## Captainnumber36

MarkMcD said:


> OK Captain,
> 
> Since you haven't answered either of my last two messages to you, it's obvious you don't want my attempts to help. No worries, I won't comment any more on your work so no need to worry.


My apologies, I did read what you wrote. I thought I had responded, I at least found the advice very helpful. If you were the one that suggested I attempt to go from head to piano instead of piano to head, I thought that was a great suggestion.

Please do keep your advice coming, it's been helpful.


----------



## Captainnumber36

But, I do think I'm going to stick to my original plan not to continue to post my ideas here. I love what I create, dearly, and I know others do too, but I only aim to please myself and hope others like it in return.

I almost fell into the trap of giving in and attempting to compose how this forum wants me to, but that isn't right, not by me anyway. I have to stick to my guns, I'll probably continue to send my videos on PM to Bettina for advice and such since she seems to get me, but I'm really done posting here and continually having to fight an up hill battle against the majority of those who visit this section of the board.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Nonsense bro. Forget New Age.


Why should I forget New Age if I love it and enjoy it. I think I'm following the path of Vangelis and Yanni, that's what I've focused on for years and it's really what I know and how I work as a musician and it is in line with my values.


----------



## brianvds

Captainnumber36 said:


> Why should I forget New Age if I love it and enjoy it. I think I'm following the path of Vangelis and Yanni, that's what I've focused on for years and it's really what I know and how I work as a musician and it is in line with my values.


I am personally quite fond of a lot of what those two did, though I suppose it doesn't fly too well on a classical music board. 
Interestingly, neither of the two can read music.


----------



## Captainnumber36

brianvds said:


> I am personally quite fond of a lot of what those two did, though I suppose it doesn't fly too well on a classical music board.
> Interestingly, neither of the two can read music.


I'll PM you vids periodically as well, thanks for having an interest and showing support my friend!


----------



## Captainnumber36

brianvds said:


> I am personally quite fond of a lot of what those two did, though I suppose it doesn't fly too well on a classical music board.
> Interestingly, neither of the two can read music.


I can read music, not spectacularly, but I can read. And I know basic theory.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> Why should I forget New Age if I love it and enjoy it. I think I'm following the path of Vangelis and Yanni, that's what I've focused on for years and it's really what I know and how I work as a musician and it is in line with my values.


I was saying this piece is not new age. If you go on a new age site with this piece, this may not fly from their perspective either. It clearly is classical inspired.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I'm checking out Vangelis' "Rosetta" album.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> I was saying this piece is not new age. If you go on a new age site with this piece, this may not fly from their perspective either. It clearly is classical inspired.


I've seen New Age solo piano albums with Classical compositions on it, so I think it will fly. I think that audience would be more receptive to the majority of my work than here.


----------



## Captainnumber36

When I sit down to compose, I don't say, this is going to be classical or new age or anything, I just let it all flow out of me.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I think you are confusing 2 different kind of criticisms. One is by those who don't believe in what you're doing, and another that believes but thinks you need refinement. I can understand your rejection of the first, but the rejection of second don't make sense to me, as you wouldn't need to change the virtues of what you're presenting.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> I think you are confusing 2 different kind of criticisms. One is by those who don't believe in what you're doing, and another that believes but thinks you need refinement. I can understand your rejection of the first, but the rejection of second don't make sense to me, as you wouldn't need to change the virtues of what you're presenting.


I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me to do, Phil! :lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> When I sit down to compose, I don't say, this is going to be classical or new age or anything, I just let it all flow out of me.


Think of all the results if everyone did just that. Remember the virtue of Classical music you pointed out before, the sophistication. Would that be largely in the results?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me to do, Phil! :lol:


Just what I said before. Be patient, listen and analyse before composing in the certain genre. and remember composing doesn't mean winging it.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Think of all the results if everyone did just that. Remember the virtue of Classical music you pointed out before, the sophistication. Would that be largely in the results?


I have a extremely sensitive musical ear, that is my strength as a musician. I'm not saying I don't have room to grow, but I'm not sure learning theory is what I really want to do right now if that is what your suggestion is.

Also, you kind of gave me the impression you didn't really care for much of my music that is New Age inspired (and that is the majority of my music.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Just what I said before. Be patient, listen and analyse before composing in the certain genre. and remember composing doesn't mean winging it.


Overall, I don't feel I wing it, but it almost always feels effortless. There might be a rushed idea here or there (which Bettina is so good at picking up on in my composing) though.


----------



## Captainnumber36

What portions of this piece feel like they were rushed to you?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> Overall, I don't feel I wing it, but it almost always feels effortless. There might be a rushed idea here or there (which Bettina is so good at picking up on in my composing) though.


Last post for the night. Going by the Suzuki method will not get you into the heart or mechanics of composition. There was at least one instance where the meter in the music was broken/violated which is inconsistent for music of this type for example. Going by ear without the proper fundamentals would not help you in composition. All musical genres have to be consistent, including New Age. It is not only rules in Classical genre that are being broken. That is the problem.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Last post for the night. Going by the Suzuki method will not get you into the heart or mechanics of composition. There was at least one instance where the meter in the music was broken/violated which is inconsistent for music of this type for example. Going by ear without the proper fundamentals would not help you in composition. All musical genres have to be consistent, including New Age. It is not only rules in Classical genre that are being broken. That is the problem.


I just don't feel that's a big problem...I like playing what I hear and feel, combining all the styles that have inspired me into a unique voice.

I know you feel strongly I should adhere to rules of a genre, but I don't see that, personally.

But I do think crowds that like spiritual healing music would enjoy mine.


----------



## brianvds

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm checking out Vangelis' "Rosetta" album.


His last few albums are a bit lacking in melodic interest to my liking.


----------



## Captainnumber36

brianvds said:


> His last few albums are a bit lacking in melodic interest to my liking.


Which one do you suggest?


----------



## Captainnumber36

I'm not sure about Yanni yet, perhaps you can lead me to some of your favorite albums by him.


----------



## Larkenfield

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not sure about Yanni yet, perhaps you can lead me to some of your favorite albums by him.


Try his album _Tribute_ dedicated to his father. He has some of the best musicians on the planet in his orchestra, and some of his works are in unusual meters, such as 7/4.

I do not consider him a new age composer, nor does he; but I consider him a highly original composer who has even developed his own musical notation for writing things down. While some of his music can be saccharine, not all of it is. He's a very unusual eclectic musician, sometimes brilliant IMO who can't really be fit into any one category. He's played in places that most musicians can only dream of, such as performing at the Taj Mahal and the Greek Acropolis.

I do not consider him a classical musician in the usual sense of the word, but I do feel that he has written some inspired and exciting works for orchestra that draw upon different world cultures, with terrific beats, and he can be an _outstanding_ orchestrator.

I do not go along with the general put-down or snobbery of his music. I have enjoyed _Tribute_ numerous times and the DVD is even better with more songs. He often has a gift for melody and many of his songs are memorable with tremendously catchy rhythms and melodic hooks.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I'm not sure, Yanni kind of feels Cheesy to me, but I am loving Vangelis very much. Very layered, intricate, and emotionally satisfying works.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I just started up this Yanni Tribute CD and am not liking it from the first notes...it's too over the top and lacking in emotional depth in my opinion. The melodies are also rather bland to my tastes.


----------



## brianvds

Captainnumber36 said:


> Which one do you suggest?


As I note in another thread, my personal favourite Vangelis album is _Soil Festivities_. I also like _China_ and _The City_, as well as some of his film soundtracks, such as _Antarctica, Blade Runner_ and_1492: Conquest of Paradise_. Oh, and the album _Voices_ is also very nice.

One problem with Vangelis is that sometimes an album contains a single track that is stunning along with lots of others that are not so much. E.g. Movement 5 from _El Greco_ does much more for me than most of the other. Well, the whole album is pretty nice, mind you. But with many of his albums there will always be one bit that stands out for me. E.g. this movement from _Mask_:






The others do not reach this standard, even though they are perfectly listenable. And here's the famous bit from _Opera Sauvage_:






It's a cover version, I think. More memorable perhaps than any of the other tracks on that album, though they are all nice.



Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not sure about Yanni yet, perhaps you can lead me to some of your favorite albums by him.


Yanni's a mixed bag for me; I find some of his music a bit too light to my liking. But his sentimental slush is a guilty pleasure for me. I don't actually know which pieces are in which albums; I downloaded them individually. These are among the nice ones:





















I know, I know - the musical equivalent of Thomas Kinkade paintings (for which I _also_ have a soft spot! )


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just don't feel that's a big problem...I like playing what I hear and feel, combining all the styles that have inspired me into a unique voice.
> 
> I know you feel strongly I should adhere to rules of a genre, but I don't see that, personally.
> 
> But I do think crowds that like spiritual healing music would enjoy mine.


Not rules in a genre but in music itself. It is like writing a poem with wrong grammar, spelling, in addition to being in consistent in a genre. The last one is the least of the problem. Like someone else posted, you should write out the music. It has to work out as written music, while you are changing from 4/4 time to just 2/4 time for just 1 bar before reverting in the middle of a certain phrase. You are anticipating a G chord but use a D instead (not actual chords, but an example) which makes the harmony not resolve completely.

It could be called incompetently composed. I don't want to rain on your parade, but I just thought you be made aware, as quite a few have commented the similar, but you haven't rectified it over several pieces over the course from what I've noticed. As Mark said I think you have potential, but seem to be strongly resisting the refinement process. That is why I said you need to differentiate the comments. Mark and I are not telling you to change your style like some others seem to be telling you, but to basically say keep doing what you have in mind to do, except fix the "grammar/spelling" of your music. Notice I was hesitant to offer much comment till after several pieces to be more clear on what I am hearing/seeing and is not meant to denigrate your music


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Not rules in a genre but in music itself. It is like writing a poem with wrong grammar, spelling, in addition to being in consistent in a genre. The last one is the least of the problem. Like someone else posted, you should write out the music. It has to work out as written music, while you are changing from 4/4 time to just 2/4 time for just 1 bar before reverting in the middle of a certain phrase. You are anticipating a G chord but use a D instead (not actual chords, but an example) which makes the harmony not resolve completely.
> 
> It could be called incompetently composed. I don't want to rain on your parade, but I just thought you be made aware, as quite a few have commented the similar, but you haven't rectified it over several pieces over the course from what I've noticed. As Mark said I think you have potential, but seem to be strongly resisting the refinement process. That is why I said you need to differentiate the comments. Mark and I are not telling you to change your style like some others seem to be telling you, but to basically say keep doing what you have in mind to do, except fix the "grammar/spelling" of your music. Notice I was hesitant to offer much comment till after several pieces to be more clear on what I am hearing/seeing and is not meant to denigrate your music


I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this...so I think I'll just leave it at this. Thanks for your advice and passionate responses!


----------



## Captainnumber36

What are your thoughts on this composition, Phil? (Not my own, but one of my favorite bands).


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> What are your thoughts on this composition, Phil? (Not my own, but one of my favorite bands).


It's interesting. Quite inventive. The singing part interacts in an interesting way and lyrics are funny.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this...so I think I'll just leave it at this. Thanks for your advice and passionate responses!


Basically all you have to do is write out your music, is all I'm saying. Someone else also said it. You'll see the music in a different light and how it fits between the bars and stuff, and I think your skills will really take off from that launching pad. Remember it's not that you really have to change direction, just refine. If you go on other sites, eventually others will pick it out too. This piece really showcased your strength the best, but I think also brought out the weakness into plainer view to me, since it really is more classical.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Basically all you have to do is write out your music, is all I'm saying. Someone else also said it. You'll see the music in a different light and how it fits between the bars and stuff, and I think your skills will really take off from that launching pad. Remember it's not that you really have to change direction, just refine. If you go on other sites, eventually others will pick it out too. This piece really showcased your strength the best, but I think also brought out the weakness into plainer view to me, since it really is more classical.


I'll try, I've never written out my music before. I'll try to find a program that can aid in this, any suggestions? I think you're right though, seeing the music will certainly help me see it in a new light!


----------



## Captainnumber36

I think I'll start with one of my simpler/shorter pieces first to get the hang of it. This piece would be a difficult place to start from in terms of scoring my music.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Playing more with a metronome would also help, I think.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'll try, I've never written out my music before. I'll try to find a program that can aid in this, any suggestions? I think you're right though, seeing the music will certainly help me see it in a new light!


1. I used IWriteMusic for ipad at first. it is the easiest to use in terms of user interface. you can also playback the music you wrote with a button to review.

2. Lilypond. The user interface isn't so great, since you are basically write a piece of code. But it is versatile, and editing is easier, you can change all notes from eighth notes to quarter notes, etc. with just 1 character. Plus it generates a midi file on what you wrote with perfect timing based on what you specified so you can hear how it sounds and revise as necessary.

http://lilypond.org/download.html

Also follow along some pieces you know well on the score. That also makes you see that particular music in a different light. Here is simple one notatively you can follow and analyse, but make no mistake, the harmony is not simple, only the notation. He is constantly shifting to different chords and changing just a note or 2 in transition chords.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Phil loves classical said:


> 1. I used IWriteMusic for ipad at first. it is the easiest to use in terms of user interface. you can also playback the music you wrote with a button to review.
> 
> 2. Lilypond. The user interface isn't so great, since you are basically write a piece of code. But it is versatile, and editing is easier, you can change all notes from eighth notes to quarter notes, etc. with just 1 character. Plus it generates a midi file on what you wrote with perfect timing based on what you specified so you can hear how it sounds and revise as necessary.
> 
> http://lilypond.org/download.html
> 
> Also follow along some pieces you know well on the score. That also makes you see that particular music in a different light. Here is simple one notatively you can follow and analyse, but make no mistake, the harmony is not simple, only the notation. He is constantly shifting to different chords and changing just a note or 2 in transition chords.


try to identify all the chords. Be careful because the bottom note does not necessarily label which chord it is, as there are 2 inversions of each chord (this is where music theory would help), which in fact helps to find related chords, as Chopin is doing here.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> try to identify all the chords. Be careful because the bottom note does not necessarily label which chord it is, as there are 2 inversions of each chord (this is where music theory would help), which in fact helps to find related chords, as Chopin is doing here.


I'm fairly good at distinguishing between inversions and the actual chord it is. I'd just have to sit down with it to figure it out, which is why this piece isn't a good one to start with being it has a lot of different chords in it.


----------



## Captainnumber36

edited. :tiphat:


----------



## nikola

Larkenfield said:


> Try his album _Tribute_ dedicated to his father. He has some of the best musicians on the planet in his orchestra, and some of his works are in unusual meters, such as 7/4.
> 
> I do not consider him a new age composer, nor does he; but I consider him a highly original composer who has even developed his own musical notation for writing things down. While some of his music can be saccharine, not all of it is. He's a very unusual eclectic musician, sometimes brilliant IMO who can't really be fit into any one category. He's played in places that most musicians can only dream of, such as performing at the Taj Mahal and the Greek Acropolis.
> 
> I do not consider him a classical musician in the usual sense of the word, but I do feel that he has written some inspired and exciting works for orchestra that draw upon different world cultures, with terrific beats, and he can be an _outstanding_ orchestrator.
> 
> I do not go along with the general put-down or snobbery of his music. I have enjoyed _Tribute_ numerous times and the DVD is even better with more songs. He often has a gift for melody and many of his songs are memorable with tremendously catchy rhythms and melodic hooks.


Yanni is brilliant and underrated composer. Certainly much more original and unique than many wannabe classical composers.


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola said:


> Yanni is brilliant and underrated composer. Certainly much more original and unique than many wannabe classical composers.


Do you have any suggestions on albums to start with to get a taste of his music?


----------



## Captainnumber36

I'm enjoying the album "In My Time" by Yanni quite a bit so far!


----------



## brianvds

Phil loves classical said:


> try to identify all the chords. Be careful because the bottom note does not necessarily label which chord it is, as there are 2 inversions of each chord (this is where music theory would help), which in fact helps to find related chords, as Chopin is doing here.


As with intervals, I am always amazed at how people can instantly recognize chords on sheet music. It takes me ages to work out what chord I am dealing with on a page; analyzing that bit of Chopin (or not even analyzing; just identifying the chords) would take me hours and hours of work, and then I'd probably still be wrong on half of them too.


----------



## dzc4627

I must say Captain, this is a step in the right direction. The rhythms are still a bit square. The melody and music is still too simple, the chords and progressions a bit clumsy at times... but that being said, a 100% improvement on everything you have posted here thus far. The tonic dominant relationship speaks loudly and clearly. I encourage you to continue in this direction.


----------



## nikola

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm enjoying the album "In My Time" by Yanni quite a bit so far!


Yes, I wanted to recommend that one. I also like his more abstract earlier ones like 'Keys to Imagination' and 'Out of Silence'. 'Tribute' is brilliant too and 'Live at Acropolis' is a must have.


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola said:


> Yes, I wanted to recommend that one. I also like his more abstract earlier ones like 'Keys to Imagination' and 'Out of Silence'. 'Tribute' is brilliant too and 'Live at Acropolis' is a must have.


I'll check out Keys to the Imagination later tonight!


----------



## Captainnumber36

dzc4627 said:


> I must say Captain, this is a step in the right direction. The rhythms are still a bit square. The melody and music is still too simple, the chords and progressions a bit clumsy at times... but that being said, a 100% improvement on everything you have posted here thus far. The tonic dominant relationship speaks loudly and clearly. I encourage you to continue in this direction.


I don't even know how I even began to write this piece, I'm not really in control of what comes out of me. I do know I spent more time on compositions in high school (when this was written) and I was taking lessons which could have certainly had influence on this.

I've only recently begun listening to Classical again quite heavily since taking lessons, so perhaps those older ideas will start to come about again.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'll check out Keys to the Imagination later tonight!


This is unlike anything I've heard before!


----------



## nikola

Captainnumber36 said:


> This is unlike anything I've heard before!


It's certainly very unique. Lack of formal musical education didn't stop him to compose unique music and that's true art. His early synth music may sound somehow dated today, but it's still brilliant. 'KTI' is very atmospheric album.. almost out of this world. With 'Out of Silence' he went even more into that direction, but with more considering complexity of compositions I would say. 
Some of those pieces have great orchestral arrangements and 'Live at Acropolis' is perfect example. 
Considering that he is probably one of the most laughed at and underrated composers of our time, that shows pretty good the picture of our mediocre and fake society filled with people who wouldn't recognise real talent even if it would hit them in the head like a brick. Wannabe classical composers compose technicalities. Yani compose music. That's a 'little' difference.


----------



## nikola

I was listening more closely now to your piece and I think it's really nice. It has that Erik Satie-ish rythm too. Maybe slightly too static, but still very nice piece of music and some nice melodic development.


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola said:


> I was listening more closely now to your piece and I think it's really nice. It has that Erik Satie-ish rythm too. Maybe slightly too static, but still very nice piece of music and some nice melodic development.


thanks!  Satie, Debussy, & Ravel are among my favorites for solo piano.


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola, perhaps I could increase the tempo a bit.


----------



## nikola

You can always try to experiment. My piano pieces are also very simple (even more simple than yours on technical level) and left hand isn't 'all over the place' like many here would like it to be, so I tried always to compose something that could stand on its own no matter how simple it may be. For example, this is one of the simplest pieces I made, but I still love it:


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola said:


> You can always try to experiment. My piano pieces are also very simple (even more simple than yours on technical level) and left hand isn't 'all over the place' like many here would like it to be, so I tried always to compose something that could stand on its own no matter how simple it may be. For example, this is one of the simplest pieces I made, but I still love it:


I love it, I would probably slow it down even a bit more to bring out more emotion. Subtle dynamic changes would help bring out more emotion in that beautiful melody.

Are you performing it?


----------



## nikola

Captainnumber36 said:


> I love it, I would probably slow it down even a bit more to bring out more emotion. Subtle dynamic changes would help bring out more emotion in that beautiful melody.
> 
> Are you performing it?


Thanks. Yes, it's me playing. I'm amateur composer and poor piano player, but I didn't compose anything new since December of 2016.


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola said:


> Thanks. Yes, it's me playing. I'm amateur composer and poor piano player, but I didn't compose anything new since December of 2016.


It's got a holly spirit about it, a true inner voice. I do hope you will get back to composing, you have a knack for breathtaking melody. We are similar composers, I think, in that we focus on melody more than anything else.


----------



## nikola

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's got a holly spirit about it, a true inner voice. I do hope you will get back to composing, you have a knack for breathtaking melody. We are similar composers, I think, in that we focus on melody more than anything else.


Thanks. I'm glad you like it so much. Yes, I pretty much want to pull some stronger harmonies/melodies that can bring some interesting atmosphere too. I know my limitations as amateur musician, but I also know that I can create something interesting that will be truly mine even with all my playing limitations. I won't make money with my music, so I composed it only for my own fulfillment. 
And considering all those critics here... they won't help you that much. People must realize what you want to do and help you on that way, but instead of that they're always obsessed too much with what they want to hear. You can't please everybody. The more and more you post your music here it is obvious that you evolve in many different and interesting directions. I can hear a little of classical, a little of new age, a little of jazz, a little of minimalistic etc in your music and every new piece has something new and interesting to offer. Continue to search for new ideas and improvements within yourself. That's only real path.

I will share some of my pieces here.. they're not perfect, but I'm pretty much happy with most of these.. I achieved what I wanted to achieve at the moment I composed them even with all their failures. Videos are there only so it could be more interesting.

There are many other pieces I composed, but as you can hear, they're pretty much simple on technical level. I didn't compose them to become next Beethoven. I composed them, so I can actually enjoy while listening to my own music. I know... I suck 
I hope I didn't ruin your thread with my little musical sketches :angel:


----------



## Captainnumber36

Nikola,

You march to your piano, right this instance, sit your hinny down, and compose more music OR ELSE! :lol:

I listened to all the pieces you posted and I can say honestly, I LOVE your music, it is undoubtedly my favorite I have heard on this board so far. Your left hand patterns are distinctly you, I feel. They have a bit of a march to them, they drive the music while your right hand melodies soar majestically above them.

You are very talented, this sounds professional my friend!

I do feel we are similar composers, but I can get a bit weirder at times, you are always beautifully sorrowful, at least in these pieces.


----------



## nikola

Thank you very much. Maybe one day, probably the day after I die my music will become popular and everybody else will become rich instead of me :lol:
I'm glad that you like it. I tend to make every piece different, but there's always something 'mine' I guess. 
Maybe I will continue to compose one day, hopefully soon, but right now I'm not in great shape because I'm pretty much screwed thanks to benzo withdrawal and there are also other things I should do in my life to earn some money finally. 
I must admit though, that there was some true joy for me in making music like in nothing else. I didn't even learn to play the piano... I simply sat down and started to 'catch' some interesting chords and melodies and then developing them. I realized that no matter how poor piano player I am that composing actually comes from the brain and not from playing skills, so I could actually enjoy in the process of composing and be happy with the final result. 
I was even making some money by drawing portraits of people, but nothing actually fulfilled me more than composing this little musical pieces.


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola said:


> Thank you very much. Maybe one day, probably the day after I die my music will become popular and everybody else will become rich instead of me :lol:
> I'm glad that you like it. I tend to make every piece different, but there's always something 'mine' I guess.
> Maybe I will continue to compose one day, hopefully soon, but right now I'm not in great shape because I'm pretty much screwed thanks to benzo withdrawal and there are also other things I should do in my life to earn some money finally.
> I must admit though, that there was some true joy for me in making music like in nothing else. I didn't even learn to play the piano... I simply sat down and started to 'catch' some interesting chords and melodies and then developing them. I realized that no matter how poor piano player I am that composing actually comes from the brain and not from playing skills, so I could actually enjoy in the process of composing and be happy with the final result.
> I was even making some money by drawing portraits of people, but nothing actually fulfilled me more than composing this little musical pieces.


I just perform at nursing homes and consider it my second job of social volunteer services and they appreciate my music and that makes me happy.

But yes, we will be famous after we die!


----------



## Captainnumber36

I especially love the right hand chords in "Taking Off". That is magical.


----------



## nikola

Captainnumber36 said:


> I especially love the right hand chords in "Taking Off". That is magical.


Yes, it's pretty much simple piece, but it has some kind of 'futuristic' feel to it and I think it's pretty much effective and atmospheric. I was never trying to define 'the genre' of my pieces. I know they're too simple to be classical and probably too 'screwed' to be new age. I wanted to like what I compose and that's it.

It's great that you actually have the place to play your music live. It's great way for you to become really good at piano playing. I don't even consider myself to be piano player. I truly suck at that. Many of the pieces I composed were glued together in Audacity or Adobe Premiere because I couldn't play everything properly at once. 
I also couldn't even remember now to play what I composed, but I do have my own way to write down what I compose.

Since you like so much my music, here's some more... it's not that often that I share it


----------



## Captainnumber36

If you sent me the sheet music, I would perform some of your pieces.


----------



## nikola

Unfortunately, my music is only written in this way: AG / BC#G .. etc.


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola said:


> Unfortunately, my music is only written in this way: AG / BC#G .. etc.


I could probably even pick some of them up by ear, they are simple enough and just up my alley in terms of style.


----------



## nikola

Captainnumber36 said:


> I could probably even pick some of them up by ear, they are simple enough and just up my alley in terms of style.











This is 'Taking Off'... it was written only for me, so it looks so awful. Some errors are possible. I'll try to explain those hieroglyphs:

left hand */* right hand
*(*ABCD*)* - chords
ABCD - tones
*** - part that repeats itself.
dot . is *#*

If you manage to play it, that will be great.


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola said:


> View attachment 96658
> 
> 
> This is 'Taking Off'... it was written only for me, so it looks so awful. Some errors are possible. I'll try to explain those hieroglyphs:
> 
> left hand */* right hand
> *(*ABCD*)* - chords
> ABCD - tones
> *** - part that repeats itself.
> dot . is *#*
> 
> If you manage to play it, that will be great.


lol, I'd probably be better of attempting to learn it by ear instead of attempting to learn a whole new method of notation!


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> It's certainly very unique. Lack of formal musical education didn't stop him to compose unique music and that's true art. His early synth music may sound somehow dated today, but it's still brilliant. 'KTI' is very atmospheric album.. almost out of this world. With 'Out of Silence' he went even more into that direction, but with more considering complexity of compositions I would say.
> Some of those pieces have great orchestral arrangements and 'Live at Acropolis' is perfect example.
> Considering that he is probably one of the most laughed at and underrated composers of our time, that shows pretty good the picture of our mediocre and fake society filled with people who wouldn't recognise real talent even if it would hit them in the head like a brick. Wannabe classical composers compose technicalities. Yani compose music. That's a 'little' difference.


Those who want to resist Classical criticism is ok, but to put it down with repeated hostility sounds like some kind of denial to me. Yanni's music may have appeal to certain listeners, but to more experienced Classical listeners, his music sounds like Barney and Friends. i have no doubt aspiring all composers here want to compose something meaningful at least to themselves, so calling ours a fake society is quite a stretch. There is already Pachelbel's Canon for the simplistic, easy listening side. Some people do get bored of hearing inconsequential melodies over predictable chord changes, which is why music has progressed as it has. The world doesn't need to be held back by those who want to hear some simple tunes which speaks to them.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Those who want to resist Classical criticism is ok, but to put it down with repeated hostility sounds like some kind of denial to me. Yanni's music may have appeal to certain listeners, but to more experienced Classical listeners, his music sounds like Barney and Friends. i have no doubt aspiring all composers here want to compose something meaningful at least to themselves, so calling ours a fake society is quite a stretch. There is already Pachelbel's Canon for the simplistic, easy listening side. Some people do get bored of hearing inconsequential melodies over predictable chord changes, which is why music has progressed as it has. The world doesn't need to be held back by those who want to hear some simple tunes which speaks to them.


Yikes!!!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Inconsequential melodies? Predictable chord changes? Held back by simplicity which is honest and true?

Those are fighting words, Phil!

How about:

Lack of hook? Contrived complexity? Forgetting to be genuine?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Just let it rest, you have your style we have ours...there really wasn't any need to disrupt our harmony in this thread here.


----------



## Captainnumber36

So far, In My Time is my favorite Yanni album that I've heard, Nikola. I don't quite enjoy the synth stuff as much.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> Just let it rest, you have your style we have ours...there really wasn't any need to disrupt our harmony in this thread here.


i'm happy to let it rest. just offering another perspective, since it wasn't the first time I heard that argument against Classical criticism and music theory. Contrived complexity is a not a valid argument in my view, music can be genuinely complex, just as simple music and with hooks can also be ingenuine.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> i'm happy to let it rest. just offering another perspective, since it wasn't the first time I heard that argument against Classical criticism and music theory. Contrived complexity is a not a valid argument in my view, music can be genuinely complex, just as simple music and with hooks can also be ingenuine.


That was my point. But the opposite is also true, contrived complexity can exist, just as genuine simple music (which occurs more often I'd guess) is possible. Just live and let live, I say!


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> Those who want to resist Classical criticism is ok, but to put it down with repeated hostility sounds like some kind of denial to me. Yanni's music may have appeal to certain listeners, but to more experienced Classical listeners, his music sounds like Barney and Friends. i have no doubt aspiring all composers here want to compose something meaningful at least to themselves, so calling ours a fake society is quite a stretch. There is already Pachelbel's Canon for the simplistic, easy listening side. Some people do get bored of hearing inconsequential melodies over predictable chord changes, which is why music has progressed as it has. The world doesn't need to be held back by those who want to hear some simple tunes which speaks to them.


To say that classical music is better because it's more complex is same as saying that some book is better than the other book because it has more pages. It's such nonsense.
I was never big fan of Pachelbel's Canon. It's nice piece, but that's it. I prefer more famous Adagio's from Mahler and Barber. I also prefer 90% of Yanni's music over Pachelbel's Canon. It's also mostly more complex. If you think that Yanni's music is too simplistic, than you probably never heard all those progressive and unique stuff he composed. Also people who consider ABBA to be too simplistic music simply shows that they are completely tone deaf because ABBA made some of the most complex pop music ever considering song constructions.

There is actually nothing more boring, meaningless and dry than some complex classical piece pretending to be 'hard to comprehend'. It must be hard for you 'classical only' folks to enjoy in life with all those developed brains and ears who can only enjoy in some soulless noodling on instruments. I guess that's why modal and free jazz, no matter how overrated that crap is, has so many fans who believe that they are intellectualy superior because they are listening to meaningless noise while making fun of Yanni's hair, moustache and enthusiasm for life. That actually just shows how shallow and fake they all are.

Good music has a spark to it and emotion no matter how complex or simple it may be. It can be jazz, classical, pop or new age. There are many crappy classical pieces just like there are many crappy new age and pop pieces. Music genre doesn't dictate how much talented you are, but there are certainly some genres who can handle to create crap much better than some other genres.

Snobbish views on music were never coming from true artists. Even Leonard Bernstein appreciated great pop-rock music and praised it like The Beatles, Billy Joel, etc. He didn't like music because it's complicated, but because he could enjoy in it. Just listen to Beethoven's 2nd mvt. from 7th Symphony. It's certainly not one of the most complex, but it certainly is one of the most powerful pieces ever.

Also, Brahms 'Lullaby' will always be more memorable, likeable and brilliant within its simplicity than some complex noodling. That's why some classical pieces will never be forgotten. Not because they are or aren't complex, but because they will move people in some way.


----------



## brianvds

Phil loves classical said:


> Those who want to resist Classical criticism is ok, but to put it down with repeated hostility sounds like some kind of denial to me. Yanni's music may have appeal to certain listeners, but to more experienced Classical listeners, his music sounds like Barney and Friends. i have no doubt aspiring all composers here want to compose something meaningful at least to themselves, so calling ours a fake society is quite a stretch. There is already Pachelbel's Canon for the simplistic, easy listening side. Some people do get bored of hearing inconsequential melodies over predictable chord changes, which is why music has progressed as it has. The world doesn't need to be held back by those who want to hear some simple tunes which speaks to them.


Oh, I don't think we need to fear that anyone will be held back. There is room in this world for all kinds of music, hence the popularity of both Yanni and Beethoven. Even Penderecki seems to be scraping by.

Yanni belongs to a different genre and a different aesthetic; one cannot meaningfully compare his work with classical music any more than one can compare the Beatles with hip-hop. Within his genre, he is very good indeed, as is no doubt attested to by his bank balance. 

Personally, I rather like some of the music posted in this thread, though I do think it belongs more in the New Age/contemporary instrumental/ambient genre than classical. And thus I listen to it with different ears, and I judge it by different standards, than I would with classical music.

Anyway, if you think these guys are boring you should hear the piece I completed yesterday, which I will post here in due course. In almost three minutes of music, I use the grand total of two different chords.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Can't wait to hear it Brian!


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> To say that classical music is better because it's more complex is same as saying that some book is better than the other book because it has more pages. It's such nonsense.
> I was never big fan of Pachelbel's Canon. It's nice piece, but that's it. I prefer more famous Adagio's from Mahler and Barber. I also prefer 90% of Yanni's music over Pachelbel's Canon. It's also mostly more complex. If you think that Yanni's music is too simplistic, than you probably never heard all those progressive and unique stuff he composed. Also people who consider ABBA to be too simplistic music simply shows that they are completely tone deaf because ABBA made some of the most complex pop music ever considering song constructions.
> 
> There is actually nothing more boring, meaningless and dry than some complex classical piece pretending to be 'hard to comprehend'. It must be hard for you 'classical only' folks to enjoy in life with all those developed brains and ears who can only enjoy in some soulless noodling on instruments. I guess that's why modal and free jazz, no matter how overrated that crap is, has so many fans who believe that they are intellectualy superior because they are listening to meaningless noise while making fun of Yanni's hair, moustache and enthusiasm for life. That actually just shows how shallow and fake they all are.
> 
> Good music has a spark to it and emotion no matter how complex or simple it may be. It can be jazz, classical, pop or new age. There are many crappy classical pieces just like there are many crappy new age and pop pieces. Music genre doesn't dictate how much talented you are, but there are certainly some genres who can handle to create crap much better than some other genres.
> 
> Snobbish views on music were never coming from true artists. Even Leonard Bernstein appreciated great pop-rock music and praised it like The Beatles, Billy Joel, etc. He didn't like music because it's complicated, but because he could enjoy in it. Just listen to Beethoven's 2nd mvt. from 7th Symphony. It's certainly not one of the most complex, but it certainly is one of the most powerful pieces ever.
> 
> Also, Brahms 'Lullaby' will always be more memorable, likeable and brilliant within its simplicity than some complex noodling. That's why some classical pieces will never be forgotten. Not because they are or aren't complex, but because they will move people in some way.


No argument on ABBA and other genres. I was the one trying to convince the Capt'n that Classical is not superior to them in the other subforums. Funny how the tables have turned. It is a myth that all Pop is less complex than all Classical. The Beatles and others wrote some music, I would say is more complex than a lot of Baroque. Blues is not complex, and dead simple, but is great. The main thing I was against is the dismissal of music theory. It applies to all genres.

Other than writing formless postmodern music like Cage did, all the music of Yanni, and ours here, except for Portamento's postmodern one from what I've heard, simplistic or not is aiming for some kind of flow, builds on certain motifs (especially yours, which I heard last night, and the Capt'ns) which makes it bound to the rules of common practice, and there are formalities that must be followed. Even Yanni did not break these rules, since he probably had a guy over over his stuff to modify it. I actually heard a lot of promise in your works, although I noticed a few moments the phasing becomes clumsy, but it is because it didn't fit the meter like the Capt'ns on this piece here originally.

Music theory actually dictates how things sound, and produce certain emotional responses.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I feel bad to pick on Yanni, but his music is not original like the Beatles, Muddy Water, etc. or the Classical greats. It is very derivative, from all I've heard before, but I could be qrong on some pieces. Show me which piece you think is complex, and I would reevaluate.


----------



## nikola

All music has its certain form based on what human brain is able to appreciate and understand. To go way out of that form doesn't make it original or better. We could say that Stockhausen is original and bold and inventive, but I don't care for that what he created. We could say that 'Kind of Blue' by Miles Davis is the best and most original thing since sliced bread, but to me it is the most dry and boring thing ever and it opened the doors for all people without talent who are not able to compose anything meaningful, but they could noodle on trumpets until they drop dead.

What is original is actually personal style and how something makes you feel. Musical theory doesn't make you feel anything. It's just a tool and some musicians like Yanni, Vangelis or Zimmer never even used that tool and they were still able to create new worlds we didn't experience before. I'm not saying that music education is useless. I'm saying that it won't turn someone without talent into talented musician. It can help you, but for some musically talented people it is not crucial.

Bernstein, who was one of the most influental people in the classical music world of 20th century composed songs like 'America', 'Somewhere' and 'Tonight' that are nothing more or less than simply high quality pop songs and when you hear them, you know they are pop classics, just like Brahms 'Lullaby' is. Are those melodies new, inventive or original on technical level? They certainly are not, but they're still timeless classics.

It's much harder to compose something like Brahms 'Lullaby' than some uber complex 'hard to get' musical piece that lasts 2 hours. So, when something is original, it means it has a SPARK, a SOUL and it will LAST... it evokes certain (or even new) emotions... it has interesting chords and melodies to listen to. That's what music is. Music is not discovering new tones, making new technics and creating obnoxious sounds while pretending it's 'art'. Music is Brahms 'Lullaby' in its purest sense of word.

Yanni is original because nobody ever sounded like Yanni:











And this is still too little amount of his music to understand completely his style. He made several completely different albums considering instruments and styles.

Vangelis is original because nobody ever sounded like Vangelis:











Angelo Badalamenti is original because nobody ever sounded like him:






No matter how simple these music may be, that is still the music that characterized late 20th century. That is actually 'classical' music of today, because todays classical music doesn't leave the influence like back then when Beethoven did influenced the musical world. The Beatles meant for music of 20th century what Beethoven meant for music back in the early 19th century.

But it seems to me that beside irrelevant snobbery of many so called classical composers today, there is very little of real music, art, originality, emotion or invention there. 
People like Vangelis, Yanni, etc. didn't care much about any musical theory and conventions and that actually gave them the opportunity to make what they want and to give to the world part of their true nature and THAT IS how you make MUSIC. While composing they didn't think about complexity or technicalities. They simply let it flow through them. THAT is music.

Some other composers like Ennio Morricone (my favorite musican ever) know every trick of musical theory and are still brilliant, so it's not that I'm saying that musical knowledge is bad. It's just that even with musical knowledge a big percentage of people will compose uninspired and boring crap, but they will always admire 'complexity' and 'hard to play' results no matter how generic, uninspired, boring or even bad what they composed sound.

We don't know will Captainnumber36 maybe become one day even more unique and famous composer than any of us here, but you're all still very harsh at trying to destroy his will to compose what he wants and the fact that he wants to be himself. He will find his own style and he will certainly improve. Every new piece he compose is better than the previous one. The only thing that actually count is what he feels about his music and what he wants to achieve even if it's only for his own psychological fulfillment.

For anyone who thinks that music is mathematic and bunch of rules, he'll never be able to make anything substantial and with spark, so that people could actually ENJOY or FEEL something while listening to that.

Considering blues, I'm not a big fan. Too much of the same. I'm not crazy about generic music like folk, etc. even though some of it I do like. Blues is too much relying on the same pattern over and over again and that's not for me. 
I appreciate musicians who gave the part of themselves and who were making music because they truly enjoed in the process and gave the part of themselves. They didn't care about rules or trend and that is always big plus. Yanni once said - the moment I try to analyze or to think too much while composing, the magic is gone. The almost same thing told Vangelis. 
Billy Joel (classicaly trained musician) once said that what he compose he wants to like. He doesn't compose music thinking about other people and what they might like. He must like it. 
It's the same way I composed my music and I'm proud of every single piece I composed no matter how flawed or simple those pieces are, but I know one thing - THEY'RE GOOD. And no matter what anyone else say can't change what I feel and what I believe about my pieces, because they are part of me and my awful amateurish 'skills'.


----------



## paulc

It's great if people can create music intuitively without any knowledge of theory. Some people can write things which 'work' without knowing why. Music theory is simply observing and theorising about what has worked based on past practice.

It is a mistake for those with no formal training to dismiss theoretical criticism as 'elitist' when their pieces are formed with little regard for one or more of melody, harmony, rhythm, good voice-leading, *unification* etc.. Poorly formed does not always mean devoid of value, but sometimes ideas presented less strongly than they could be.

Lots of the pieces posted here and criticised are said by their authors to be 'melodically strong', but often all you hear is improvisation (?). A stream of unrelated phrases cobbled together with little thought. Music posted as examples of non-classical material that works (even Yanni!) often shows a sense of structure (form) that is not understood by those posting it, lol. You could analyse that music and demonstrate that it is formed in a moderately sophisticated way that amateur pieces are not.

This is by no means exhaustive, but at least hints at the nature of composition.

Composing through melodic structure:





We have the half-serious comments about Baroque music being defined by harpsichords and horse carriages... Frustrating.


----------



## nikola

paulc said:


> Lots of the pieces posted here and criticised are said by their authors to be 'melodically strong', but often all you hear is improvisation (?). A stream of unrelated phrases cobbled together with little thought. Music posted as examples of non-classical material that works (even Yanni!) often shows a sense of structure (form) that is not understood by those posting it, lol. You could analyse that music and demonstrate that it is formed in a moderately sophisticated way that the amateur pieces are not.


Give me example of my 'improvisation' and 'phrases cobbled together with little thought'. I'm not tone deaf and I pretty much understand a sense of structure in Yanni's music because I can hear it the same way I can hear it in my music. Let's hear again these pieces I composed so enlighten me how they're 'cobbled together without thought':


----------



## nikola

I think it's really a big nonsense to say that people can actually LEARN what works in music. Sure, if they don't have a talent or if they're tone deaf, they must learn what works in music since they CAN'T HEAR IT. 
What people can only learn in music are playing skills and that's it. It's the same as skills for driving a car or typing on keyboards. 
Ok, we have many bad composers out there with or without musical training. It's enough to open MTV. It's obvious that their tones work together (lets say that they can recognize atonal parts and that they don't like those), but it's also obvious that's not enough to be good music. You always must be able to HEAR what you're composing. Nobody will teach you that something you composed actually doesn't work on any level unless you're able to hear it. It's like saying that you can actually 'learn' to hear better what works and what does not work and that is pretty much nonsense. It's like saying that someone will teach you to recognize differences of color tones. No, you simply see it.


----------



## paulc

nikola - I wasn't talking specifically about your music, but..

The Piano's Song?

The first 20 seconds is simple, but harmonically and melodically coherent. Yay! The next 20 seconds (up to 40) is jumbled. Harmonically different in each 'phrase', the harmony not repeated. The second half of the melody goes off on a tangent too and that part ends on a fairly weak cadence. The next minute is as I said, mostly unrelated parts cobbled together. Parts which could be reworked and improved by thematic unification. Until about 1:26 when some ideas we've heard earlier begin to show up again.

So, that piece is not completely unstructured, but could be improved in several ways.


----------



## nikola

paulc said:


> nikola - I wasn't talking specifically about your music, but..
> 
> The Piano's Song?
> 
> The first 20 seconds is simple, but harmonically and melodically coherent. Yay! The next 20 seconds (up to 40) is jumbled. Harmonically different in each 'phrase' and the harmony not repeated. The second half of the melody goes off on a tangent too and that part ends on a fairly weak cadence. The next minute 1:05 is as I said, mostly unrelated parts cobbled together. Parts which could be reworked and improved by thematic unification. Until about 1:26 when some ideas we've heard earlier begin to show up again.
> 
> So, that piece is not completely unstructured, but could be improved in several ways.


So, you're making things up only to be right about your previous statement!? Being full of it isn't actually objective criticism. I never heard such load of nonsense and I'm not saying it because it's my music, but because it's pretty much obvious to me that you're making things up. I have almost perfect pitch and I'm pretty much aware of all good and bad sides considering my music and what you mentioned is actually pretty much baseless on every possible level. 
Simple? Sure it is. It's not classical music.
Jumbled after 20 seconds? big LOL
About the 'second half' of the pice, I know you only want to sound smart. 
Parts reworked to become better? I'm sure someone could rework even Beethoven's 9th symph. so I can't say anything against that.

Unfortunately, you proved me right now that you guys are so lost in your 'theory' nonsense that you're even brave enough to say something like this. There is something really wrong with this place and with your perception of music.


----------



## paulc

nikola - If you're so confident - perhaps you could explain the structure of the part between 00:40 - 1:26? What's coherent about it? How is it tied together melodically? Harmonically? Is there a motif I'm not picking up on? What makes those contrasting parts necessary to The Piano's Song?

I'm just saying, that section could be from a completely different song. Contrast is fine, but contrast after contrast after contrast?


----------



## nikola

paulc said:


> nikola - If you're so confident - perhaps you could explain the structure of the part between 00:40 - 1:26? What's coherent about it? How is it tied together melodically? Harmonically? Is there a motif I'm not picking up on? What makes those contrasting parts necessary to The Piano's Song?
> 
> I'm just saying, that section could be from a completely different song. Contrast is fine, but contrast after contrast after contrast?


OMG 
You aren't joking, right!? :lol:
I only hope that you will never become a music teacher.
If not anything else, this is really one of the most cohesive piece that you will probably ever hear 
Sure, there is a motif you're not picking up on. There are many things you're obviously not able to pick up on. You don't understand it because you can't hear what is obvious. If you think that things must be 'obvious' on mathematical level you missed then the whole point of music.

I'm wondering how in 'Rhapsody in Blue' by Gershwin all those different pieces work together and why. Gershwin never explained that to you... or to anyone else, but the thing is that he actually did thrown many different parts together that worked because of the similar atmosphere even though they didn't have much in common on musical level.. there are many many different little brilliant themes. 
On the other hand, my piece is not like that. It is much more cohesive, much more simple and it actually really work as a whole. If you can't hear it, nobody can describe it to you.

I'm actually glad that you left such 'professional' comment because you made things more clear now about fake mentality here.

I will only say that "The Piano's Song' got many positive reviews. Even one girl who is a singer and has great vocal couldn't believe i composed it and said it's brilliant piece. 
Well, I don't think it's brilliant, but I know it's pretty much decent piece in all its simplicity.
Listen with ears and not with a**.


----------



## paulc

nikola said:


> "this is really one of the most cohesive piece that you will probably ever hear"


It's one thing for you to claim that and another to prove it by documenting the motif and other cohesive elements _in the section I mentioned (00:40 - 1:26)_. But, you can't show us the commonality in that section can you? You didn't compose it, you recorded it ad-lib! If you composed it, you could show us the score and highlight the repeated elements...

Anyway, I think I'm done reasoning with you. Notice I only talked about the music and you responded with comments about my character. You can't handle criticism.


----------



## paulc

Unification:


----------



## nikola

paulc said:


> It's one thing for you to claim that and another to prove it by documenting the motif and other cohesive elements _in the section I mentioned (00:40 - 1:26)_. But, you can't show us the commonality in that section can you? You didn't compose it, you recorded it ad-lib! If you composed it, you could show us the score and highlight the repeated elements...
> 
> Anyway, I think I'm done reasoning with you. Notice I only talked about the music and you responded with comments about my character. You can't handle criticism.


LOL... now accusing me of not composing it. I didn't learn music theory and I don't care. I don't need to prove you anything, but there is something you could do - stop saying nonsense about something you obviously don't have feeling or talent for - a music.

I can't handle criticism? Everyone can pull nonsense out of their a** just like you and claim that is criticism. It's quite sad that you call your delusions "a criticism".


----------



## paulc

I think you need some more benzos


----------



## nikola

paulc said:


> I think you need some more benzos


lol... you're really pathetic, but even worse is that your abilities to hear music are lower than low. You're the epitome of everything wrong and fake. I was on some other music boards, but I never read such a load of meaningless stuff before about anyone's piece. You're simply saying nonsense so you can feel smarter even though you don't know what you're talking about and it's so obvious that it hurts. To you music is something that is on the paper. You can't feel it... you can't hear it... it's sad.


----------



## Captainnumber36

paulc said:


> I think you need some more benzos


That's not something to joke about. Benzo withdrawal is very serious! I take Xanax as needed, were you taking a benzo everyday Nikola?


----------



## nikola

Captainnumber36 said:


> That's not something to joke about. Benzo withdrawal is very serious! I take Xanax as needed, were you taking a benzo everyday Nikola?


I was taking diazepam for 3 months (small doses) and it screwed me like hell. Even without that I have some crazy condition since March (not serious, but hard to deal with) and that's why I started to take them. 7 weeks ago I quit diazepam, but even before that I got some new symptoms. After I take the last one, a week after that I developed some 20 new symptoms and my symptom for which I started to take them became much worse. It seems that very slowly some symptoms are going away or becoming easier to handle, but it's still pretty much hard.


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola said:


> I was taking diazepam for 3 months (small doses) and it screwed me like hell. Even without that I have some crazy condition since March (not serious, but hard to deal with) and that's why I started to take them. 7 weeks ago I quit diazepam, but even before that I got some new symptoms. After I take the last one, a week after that I developed some 20 new symptoms and my symptom for which I started to take them became much worse. It seems that very slowly some symptoms are going away or becoming easier to handle, but it's still pretty much hard.


I'm sorry it turned out like that for you and hope you get well soon. Xanax is a miracle drug for my anxiety, i take lexapro and gabapentin everyday and xanax as needed.


----------



## nikola

After this what happened with diazepam I really don't trust doctors anymore and I won't take any psychotropic drug no matter what.


----------



## nikola

Considering that nonsense from paulc, even though it doesn't deserve an answer, I'll try to explain with my own words my piece "The Piano's Song".

So, paulc said that first 20 seconds are cohesive. Well, there's at least one thing we can agree about. 
After 20 seconds something changes and he can't understand WHY and states that it's all 'jumbled'. So, I'll try to explain this.

If you couldn't hear it (and obviously you couldn't), the beginning of the main part (let's call it like that) starts at 0:19 and it starts with exactly same harmony as the begininning of the piece. 
BUT, considering melody, it takes only 2 first tones of the beginning, then melody stops for a moment and its direction changes. After that change, harmony changes too and that's where the magic is.

Because piece is very similar to a pop song structure, we could call that part from 0:20 to 0:40 to be a 'chorus' of the piece. It's something you can hear for example in many pop songs. You can listen to *Elton John's 'I'm Still Standing'*. When chorus starts, not much things make sense on the paper, but that is where magic starts and it seems to me that you can't understand this simple magic, but that is why we are listening to the music and enjoy in it. Something works simply because it works to the ear. You can call it "the development of the harmonies/melodies" if you're not familiar with something like that. 
There is no science behind it, because that 'science' must rely on our ears. Our ears don't rely on 'musical science'.

So, just because you can't 'justify' (what a load of nonsense) on paper that 'chorus' part, it doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Composers like Elton John compose by ear and they don't try to justify with sheets what they composed. You can hear his song and realize that he certainly knows what he is doing, not based on his knowledge (even though he has it), but based on his hearing and instincts.

If something doesn't change and always stays the same, we probably talk about some simplistic folk or blues songs and not about this.
So, when I composed that 'chorus' part, I was actually quite aware what I am doing and it certainly wasn't jumbled. It is actually very cohesive. I put enough thinking and effort into it to sound exactly the way it sounds now. If you would try to change it, you would only ruin it... trust me on that. I don't want it to sound different (worse).

From 0:40 to 1:00 there is the same harmony just like at the beginning, but with slightly different tones of the melody and then - changes once again happens. Why!? Because it works and because it should happen.

From 1:00 to 1:25 we have quiet part. Why? Because piece needed it at that moment. It started with same LH arpeggios that you heard in previous parts which are all mostly here again now, but not in the same order. Why? Because they work just like that.

In the end you have slight variation of the beginning, the exactly same 'chorus' after that and finally the returning to the beginning and that's the end of the story.

Everythng is cohesive and works very well together. It's not classical piece and it doesn't pretend to be. It stands on its own as simple, yet cohesive and effective piano pop piece.

You can use your so called 'musical theories' on someone who is completely deaf and can't understand what music is all about.


----------



## paulc

Nikola said:


> "If you couldn't hear it (and obviously you couldn't), the beginning of the main part (let's call it like that) starts at 0:19 and it starts with exactly same harmony as the begininning of the piece."


The beginning starts on a minor chord (presumably i, then moves to VII). If the key were C minor, the progression would be C minor to Bb Major. The part you're talking about (starting at 0:19) goes from i ("C minor") to VI ("Ab major") - what Leonard Cohen describes in 'Hallelujah' as 'the minor chord to the major lift' - etc... So, the harmony is not the same. That's not what I criticised though - the first and second halves of your chorus have so little in common. The chords are different, the melody is different, aside from that brief little motif ("Eb-D-Eb .. D-C") which you could make more use of to unify that part. I think the harmonies might also be unified.

As your piece is structured: Intro - "Chorus" - Extended Bridge - "Chorus" - Outro - the first three contrasting parts (not counting the non-repeating elements in the chorus) all occur in a row - introducing new idea after new idea to the listener that they are not familiar with. Too many changes, not enough cohesion. Whereas, maybe if you revised the chorus and used that one motif more you could bring everything together. Possibly helped by repeating parts: Intro - Chorus - Intro (Variation) - Chorus - Bridge - Chorus - Outro. That's a more recognisable pop format if that is what you are aiming for.

Aside from those first three parts, the bridge section features too many changes (without any commonality) as well. In a fugue for example, any subjects are usually clearly stated at the beginning of a piece (exposition) before the development begins - so that the listener can latch onto them and hear them more clearly when they are later repeated in more complex arrangements.

I don't see how I'm being offensive? I'm not being contrarian for the sake of it, this is my opinion. The structure of your piece reminds me of some of my older ones, which also introduced a barrage of new ideas rather than developing earlier ones.

Of course, you can write whatever you want. Don't insult me though?


----------



## nikola

You are not offensive. You're only milking dead cow. Dead cow is your nonsense and milking more nonsense from nonsense only brings more nonsense. Nobody except you had the problem with listening to this piece. What you call 'unfamiliar' is simply natural development of the melody. If you don't find logic in my development, maybe I'm great innovator then and you're completely lost (unlike other listeners) to understand this piece. 

Once again, everything you mention again and again simply shows that you're not able to comprehend simple and logical melodic construction of simple and logical musical piece. 
No, I didn't aim for pop format. I didn't aim to use chords and tones from your 'theory rules'. I don't want to, because I know that this piece works on all possible levels. 

I composed what I wanted to compose and you're the only person in the universe (probably along with some other deaf wannabe classical composer) who thinks that he 'knows' something. 
Can you be more fake than you already are? 
The more you talk about this piece, the more you reveal your shallow mindset.

If you only follow some 'rules' blindly, I guess that you will never be able to compose anything meaningful. Even Vangelis and Yanni don't follow any rules and they don't even know about those. You will pull from your a** theory that they do know even you probably never heard anything from them. You only want to convince me that you know and that they know something that I don't know. Even orchestra changed one tone of Yanni's piece because they thought it doesn't belong there. When Yanni heard it, he told them that that tone actually must stay there. 

You're maybe only jealous... I would even understand that, but it seems to me that you're not able to hear what you're listening to and that is much worse. 

So, what you're talking is really and utterly useless. It doesn't have anything to do with music. Trying to put music in some cages with rules... telling to composer what chords he must use. I mean... do you realize how stupid that sounds? Of course not. You're probably spent too many years lost in all these empty babble while thinking it makes much sense. Well... keep talking. 

I must admit that there are some of my pieces that I can find parts that I'm not too happy about or that they don't sound like they perfectly fit there, but your nonsense is truly overwhelming.

I'm not insulting you. I'm trying to help you, but you obviously can't handle critic, because you think that talking nonsense about music is a good thing. I actually think that you should reconsider your delusions and start to be preoccupied with something else than music.


----------



## nikola

All the greatest musicians that actually made some difference in the world told one and the only truth: there are no rules. 
I guess there are out there also many mediocre mindsets who wouldn't be able to compose anything decent even if their life depends on that, but will always think that they can mask their lack of talent by blindly following all possible rules. 

Some of them are here attacking people who are brave enough to share their own music even though it doesn't fit into 'classical holy cow form'. The problem is that when I hear 'music' of all those 'harsh critics who are trying to help' with their nonsense I can mostly hear technical crap that sounds like they don't want to become anything other than bleak copies of long time dead composers. Sorry to say that, but some of you here don't have a f***ing clue what music actually is and to be aware that some of you actually have musical knowledge, all this is even more sad.

With his latest 3 pieces Captainnumber36 showed more talent and fast progression as an artist unlike 90% of all other stuff I was listening on this forum that can't evolve into anything more than grueling and superficial studies without any real idea, soul, theme, challenging harmony/melody patterns or originality.


----------



## paulc

We'll have to agree to disagree. Reading music books relentlessly & learning theory has helped me in a very practical way - to understand why those parts of my pieces I'm not happy about or which don't fit perfectly, don't work... and how to fix them! If you were to commit to study, you might also learn something useful. One of the books I'm reading translates treatises from people who knew or taught Bach, Mozart & Beethoven. It even cites corrections of Beethoven's early work (!) with reference to theory. If you can recognise the talent of these composers at all, you should respect the value of the theory imparted by their associates and mentors.

Thanks for the encouragement! :lol:


----------



## nikola

paulc said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree. Reading music books relentlessly & learning theory has helped me in a very practical way - to understand why those parts of my pieces I'm not happy about or which don't fit perfectly, don't work... and how to fix them! If you were to commit to study, you might also learn something useful. One of the books I'm reading translates treatises from people who knew or taught Bach, Mozart & Beethoven. It even cites corrections of Beethoven's early work (!) with reference to theory. If you can recognise the talent of these composers at all, you should respect the value of the theory imparted by their associates and mentors.
> 
> Thanks for the encouragement! :lol:


But you don't know any theory. You proved it right now. Everything you say is an enormous pile of nonsense. Believe it or not, but I'm actually really not tone deaf and I can recognize great music. I can even understand why all the most popular classical pieces are actually so popular and I LOVE almost all of them... hundreds of those pieces. I appreciate all the beauty, originality and talent to compose something so brilliant. You probably can't understand why those pieces are popular. you must read to understand why.

Have you ever shed a tear while listening to Mahler's 'Adagietto' or being deeply moved by Beethoven's 2nd mvt. from 7th symphony? Did you ever experience the rush of adrenaline while listening to Beethoven's 5th symphony or Dvorak's 'Symphony of the New World'. 
You didn't. You must study what other people can hear and feel.


----------



## paulc

You're making more assumptions! I've never studied the scores for Rachmaninov's Piano Concertos and Symphonies - which I have copies of - but I adore his music. Have you heard the second movement of Piano Concerto 2? Beautiful. What about the first 5:30 of the first movement of his 2nd Symphony, which reworks one simple motif 'first note-step up-step down' and its inversion over and over and over while rising in intensity?

The idea that someone who studies and talks at length about theory is some cold unfeeling robot is plain silly.


----------



## nikola

paulc said:


> You're making more assumptions! I've never studied the scores for Rachmaninov's Piano Concertos and Symphonies - which I have copies of - but I adore his music. Have you heard the second movement of Piano Concerto 2? Beautiful. What about the first 5:30 of the first movement of his 2nd Symphony, which reworks one simple motif 'first note-step up-step down' and its inversion over and over and over while rising in intensity?
> 
> The idea that someone who studies and talks at length about theory is some cold unfeeling robot is plain silly.


If it's not true, you didn't have to prove it with all that nonsense considering my piece. I was listening to a lot of music in my life and I'm pretty much aware by default about coherent musical constructions and I'm also aware what works and what doesn't work simply because I CAN HEAR IT, so I also know that my piece is actually very cohesive as a whole. You can hear that all my pieces are probably even too much cohesive and they rely on strong harmony/melody idea no matter how simple harmonies or melodies may be. Even I would like sometimes to compose something that is less cohesive and that flows more freely, but so far I think that I didn't compose anything like that. So, once again, what you said really doesn't make any sense because I know what I composed, why and how. 
Is it simple and maybe even too simple for 'classical ears' here? Of course it is, but to say that it is jumbled and that some parts don't work together is simply making things up. This piece sounds exactly the way I wanted it to sound, so everything you say about its cohesion isn't only wrong - it also shows somehow troubled mindset.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> If it's not true, you didn't have to prove it with all that nonsense considering my piece. I was listening to a lot of music in my life and I'm pretty much aware by default about coherent musical constructions and I'm also aware what works and what doesn't work simply because I CAN HEAR IT, so I also know that my piece is actually very cohesive as a whole. You can hear that all my pieces are probably even too much cohesive and they rely on strong harmony/melody idea no matter how simple harmonies or melodies may be. Even I would like sometimes to compose something that is less cohesive and that flows more freely, but so far I think that I didn't compose anything like that. So, once again, what you said really doesn't make any sense because I know what I composed, why and how.
> Is it simple and maybe even too simple for 'classical ears' here? Of course it is, but to say that it is jumbled and that some parts don't work together is simply making things up. This piece sounds exactly the way I wanted it to sound, so everything you say about its cohesion isn't only wrong - it also shows somehow troubled mindset.


How are his criticisms made up? I am not as learned in music theory than paulc (as he is demonstrated in his comments) but I can hear mistakes in the music. I don't understand why you're so proud not to have learned music theory. Even John Cage learned music theory. It's not like it's soulless when music theory is used. And maybe the music sounds like it works for you, but that's because you know no music theory at all, so you wouldn't know theoretically what doesn't work and what could make it sound better. The point of music for me can't be answered but I will say music would not be music without those theoretical elements going into it. Mahler's Adagietto- not mindless chord structures but theoretical elements, built on top of each other. You can't just say that it's good because it sounds good to you. Any music can sound "good."


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> If it's not true, you didn't have to prove it with all that nonsense considering my piece. I was listening to a lot of music in my life and I'm pretty much aware by default about coherent musical constructions and I'm also aware what works and what doesn't work simply because I CAN HEAR IT, so I also know that my piece is actually very cohesive as a whole. You can hear that all my pieces are probably even too much cohesive and they rely on strong harmony/melody idea no matter how simple harmonies or melodies may be. Even I would like sometimes to compose something that is less cohesive and that flows more freely, but so far I think that I didn't compose anything like that. So, once again, what you said really doesn't make any sense because I know what I composed, why and how.
> Is it simple and maybe even too simple for 'classical ears' here? Of course it is, but to say that it is jumbled and that some parts don't work together is simply making things up. This piece sounds exactly the way I wanted it to sound, so everything you say about its cohesion isn't only wrong - it also shows somehow troubled mindset.


How are his criticisms made up? I am not as learned in music theory than paulc (as he is demonstrated in his comments) but I can hear mistakes in the music. I don't understand why you're so proud not to have learned music theory. Even John Cage learned music theory. It's not like it's soulless when music theory is used. And maybe the music sounds like it works for you, but that's because you know no music theory at all, so you wouldn't know theoretically what doesn't work and what could make it sound better. The point of music for me can't be answered but I will say music would not be music without those theoretical elements going into it. Mahler's Adagietto- not mindless chord structures but theoretical elements, built on top of each other. You can't just say that it's good because it sounds good to you. Any music can sound "good."


----------



## Captainnumber36

Rules vs No Rules. I believe in no rules, as does Nikola.

end thread.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I find it interesting that personal musical background has a large impact on their views on music. It would be interesting to hear people with a strong theoretical musical background saying they don't believe in rules, which would give the argument against more meat. I think some rules are overdone by ultra-conservative musicians, but also some very basic rules exist.


----------



## Jacob Brooks

Phil loves classical said:


> I find it interesting that personal musical background has a large impact on their views on music. It would be interesting to hear people with a strong theoretical musical background saying they don't believe in rules, which would give the argument against more meat. I think some rules are overdone by ultra-conservative musicians, but also some very basic rules exist.


I agree with this almost entirely. I'd guess from your compositions that what I consider the rules to be is quite a bit more strictly tonal. I'd also add to what you said "...but also some very basic rules exist" if one wants the music to be of any quality at all.


----------



## paulc

Another maxim I've heard in addition to 'there are no rules' is 'in order to break the rules (and get away with it!) you first have to know what they are'


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> How are his criticisms made up? I am not as learned in music theory than paulc (as he is demonstrated in his comments) but I can hear mistakes in the music. I don't understand why you're so proud not to have learned music theory. Even John Cage learned music theory. It's not like it's soulless when music theory is used. And maybe the music sounds like it works for you, but that's because you know no music theory at all, so you wouldn't know theoretically what doesn't work and what could make it sound better. The point of music for me can't be answered but I will say music would not be music without those theoretical elements going into it. Mahler's Adagietto- not mindless chord structures but theoretical elements, built on top of each other. You can't just say that it's good because it sounds good to you. Any music can sound "good."


His criticism are complete nonsense, just like everything you said right now. You actually can't HEAR anything. Aren't you proving that right now with all this?
I'm not saying that music theory is useless. I'm saying that your only way to understand music is to approach to it from technical point of view. 
Now you're assuming that my piece has 'mindless chord structures' that only shows that you have a problem with someone being able to compose something meaningful without learning musical theory. Get over yourself.

More nonsense from more people on this thread won't make you to be more right about my piece. Music is not mathematic, but that is probably too hard to comprehend for snobbish mindsets.


----------



## nikola

paulc said:


> Another maxim I've heard in addition to 'there are no rules' is 'in order to break the rules (and get away with it!) you first have to know what they are'


Yanni, Zimmer and Vangelis never learned any rules. Vangelis even said that in music school they can't teach you how to compose. And still, he is one of the most influental composers of our time. 
For you too - get over yourself.

Hans Zimmer:


> Zimmer was born in Frankfurt am Main, West Germany. As a young child, he lived in Königstein-Falkenstein, where he played the piano at home but had piano lessons only briefly as he disliked the discipline of formal lessons.[4] In one of his Reddit AMAs, he said "My formal training was 2 week(s) of piano lessons. I was thrown out of 8 schools. But I joined a band. I am self-taught. But I've always heard music in my head. And I'm a child of the 20th century; computers came in very handy."[5] He moved to London as a teenager, where he attended Hurtwood House school.[6]


And he is not even one of my favorite composers, but he is actually still able to compose 'meaningful chord structures' unlike many 'music here backed up by theory knowledge'. Believe it or not, but the worst music I actually heard on this board (with some exceptions) by people who are telling that 'theory is everything'.


----------



## nikola

The only thing many of you here are trying to do is to KILL creativity of people who dare to compose what they want to compose and who actually do have their OWN voice... unlike some of you. 

When I read all that rude and harsh nonsense you were writing considering Captainnumber36 music, that he even told in the end that he will stop posting his music, only shows your level of being an a**holes. And guess what... he is improving with every piece more than you will improve ever. Why? Because he is not listening to you and your 'advices'. 

One thing is trying to help someone that his piece shines even more, but to make up things is other thing.

I've heard SO MANY bad, uninspired, empty, obnoxious, boring and awful music on this board trying to pretend to be some 'technically justified' pieces that I wonder how you can actually have a nerve to comment anything at all. 
I was never rude. When I hear something that is so bad and that nobody would actually like to hear that ever again, I skip it. Sometimes even if I hear something decent or good, I still don't always comment, of course. 

But you trying to tell someone what chords and tones he must use may probably work for those who aren't composing music, but who are composing musical rules and studies and who will never let themselves to express freely. They need your advice. I don't. I really don't, because I don't want my music to sound any different. Maybe LH playing could be improved. I could agree with that, but to tell me that "chords don't work" when they obviously do only shows the level of pathological nonsense on this board that is deeply engraved in mediocre minds. 

I'm 36 years old, not entirely stupid and certainly not tone deaf so that I could not see through your shallow 'philosophy'.


----------



## paulc

I've updated my signature.


----------



## nikola

paulc said:


> I've updated my signature.


Good for you :tiphat:


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> I find it interesting that personal musical background has a large impact on their views on music. It would be interesting to hear people with a strong theoretical musical background saying they don't believe in rules, which would give the argument against more meat. I think some rules are overdone by ultra-conservative musicians, but also some very basic rules exist.


Those very basic rules have foundation in what you can hear with your ears that works. Rules are basing on hearing and not hearing on rules.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> His criticism are complete nonsense, just like everything you said right now. You actually can't HEAR anything. Aren't you proving that right now with all this?
> I'm not saying that music theory is useless. I'm saying that your only way to understand music is to approach to it from technical point of view.
> Now you're assuming that my piece has 'mindless chord structures' that only shows that you have a problem with someone being able to compose something meaningful without learning musical theory. Get over yourself.
> 
> More nonsense from more people on this thread won't make you to be more right about my piece. *Music is not mathemati*c, but that is probably too hard to comprehend for snobbish mindsets.


Actually music is quite mathemitcal...


----------



## nikola

I remember once Leonard Bernstein said people were critcising Gershwin's 'Rhapsody in Blue' by saying that's just many different musical themes put together and it's not typical coherent classical piece with development and bla bla. Some crap like that... something like you here would probably say. 
Bernstein said that doesn't matter because all those different themes worked together and when you hear only small part from RIB you always know it's from RIB and that's why it is great. Very simple answer for too much troubled minds I guess.

Tchaikov6 said this:


> You can't just say that it's good because it sounds good to you. Any music can sound "good."


Wow... that sounds something like "You can't say that sky is blue because it looks blue to you. Any sky can look "blue". 
Sure, when tone deaf person is telling you that gangsta rap is best music ever or some infantile metal screaming is complex, then YES, we should take that with grain of salt. Unfortuntely, I'm not one of them.

So, how could you explain why even small kids can recognize today this piece and enjoy in it:




Why is it probably the most popular symphony mvt. by Mozart? Probably because of the theoretical rules in there? No, it's so popular because of its almost magnetic and likeable melody. 
It's the same with almost all the most popular pieces. There are some pieces that are on technical level great by Mozart to some 'elitists' but those pieces not so popular because they're not interesting to listen to.

Rules are there based on what people found that worked to the ears through the history. They didn't first invent the rules. First, they had to hear that it does work, so they turned it into rules... few hundreds years ago, but time did change.

Great amount of the most popular pop-rock musicians never learned any musical theory and they're still great musicians. The Beatles were for 20th Century what Beethoven was for early 19th c.
Other musicians who are composing complex musical pieces like Yanni, Vangelis, Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer etc. also don't have 'proper' musical education or none at all. Does that mean that people are wrong when they think their music is great? Obviously if I would ask you.

How can their music be great if their ears are 'fooling them'? Is it great on technical/mathematical level or only to their ears? How can Vangelis prove that this piece is great? 




He can't because he doesn't have knowledge of musical theory. He composed it from the head. He still did receive an Oscar for his 'Chariots of Fire'. 
How can we say that this piece by Elfman is great?





The whole piece is actually pretty much based on 5 tones from intro, so it is even more cohesive than Rhapsody in Blue  but there are still many things going on.

Well, guys, you have big problems. Music value is not based on theoretical rules, but on what works to the ears. It seems that you think it's the other way around - first, there were rules and after that - there were music. Yes, and I am the pope.

Once again, you don't have the slightest clue what music is all about and pretending that you can LEARN to get talent for composing is your self-delusion. Trying to convince me that I am self-deluded is only a proof more of your self-delusion. Many of you will never become composers... not because you have knowledge for musical theory, but because you want to hide your mediocre mentality and lack of talent behind it.

Now, please... let me enjoy in my musical pieces that were glued together with all those "wrong and meaningless" chords. At least Captainnumber36 enjoyed my music more than anything else he heard here so far. That's enough for me even though he's not the only one.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> Actually music is quite mathemitcal...


The purpose of music is mathematic? What is to you the purpose of music? Music must justify itself on the paper considering musical theories?
Music exists for the listeners, for enjoyment and emotional/psychological fulfillment. Can you comprehend that?
Theory is only a TOOL just like piano is a tool.. notes are tools. All those can't give you talent or ear for melody/harmony. Tools are not music. Tools are there to help you to learn more easily to create music. 
Some of you here those tools can even prevent to freely express and create anything meaningful.
Without piano or keyboard you probably can't become composer, but without musical theory you can and thousands of great musicians already proved that.
Is musical theory bad and wrong? No, but your views on music certainly are.


----------



## Phil loves classical

It is true that you can't really learn to compose from a book. But over the course of 100's of years, there is in fact a wealth of systems and methods that define the content of all music you hear including random-sounding ones. Even the most random, crude, simple or improvisational music has roots that can be found, and musical content traced. So nobody is really outside of musical theory. Some can learn certain aspects intuitively, but the underatanding won't be complete. It is in fact harder to be original without music theory, since one would be reinventing the wheel, which many of similar background would be doing as well. Back to Yanni, I listened to the new links and the music still doesn't sound original, but a hodgepodge of styles, which others have mixed as well. Music theory itself can't teach someone to compose, but it offers a better understanding and more wider perspective of what is going on. Many revolutionary and extremely progressive sounding composers are also very strict and conservative in musical views like Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> It is true that you can't really learn to compose from a book. But over the course of 100's of years, there is in fact a wealth of systems and methods that define the content of all music you hear including random-sounding ones. Even the most random, crude, simple or improvisational music has roots that can be found, and musical content traced. So nobody is really outside of musical theory. Some can learn certain aspects intuitively, but the underatanding won't be complete. It is in fact harder to be original without music theory, since one would be reinventing the wheel, which many of similar background would be doing as well. Back to Yanni, I listened to the new links and the music still doesn't sound original, but a hodgepodge of styles, which others have mixed as well. Music theory itself can't teach someone to compose, but it offers a better understanding and more wider perspective of what is going on. Many revolutionary and extremely progressive sounding composers are also very strict and conservative in musical views like Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev.


You're right, but when I say ORIGINAL, I don't think about technicalities and inventing 'new tones'. I'm talking about how those music sounds and makes people feel. Sure, if you would pull out all parts of Yanni's and Vangelis music you can hear Greek ethno, classical elements, progressive music and new age, but all that together makes Vangelis unique.. it makes Yanni unique because those are their compositions. 
I can feel certain things when I listen to Yanni's music. I can't feel that even by musicians who are trying to sound like him. I feel something completely different when I'm listening to Vangelis and I never heard any other musician that sounds like Vangelis. They may compose the same style of music, but they will never be able to 'capture' Vangelis sound, quality and magic. That is what is originality. That is what music is all about. 
Even considering approach, the lack of musical theory (or even reading the music), using synths, etc. makes them even way more original than many composers of classical music who were mostly follow the rules and patterns of their times.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> I remember once Leonard Bernstein said people were critcising Gershwin's 'Rhapsody in Blue' by saying that's just many different musical themes put together and it's not typical coherent classical piece with development and bla bla. Some crap like that... something like you here would probably say.
> Bernstein said that doesn't matter because all those different themes worked together and when you hear only small part from RIB you always know it's from RIB and that's why it is great. Very simple answer for too much troubled minds I guess.
> 
> Tchaikov6 said this:
> Wow... that sounds something like "You can't say that sky is blue because it looks blue to you. Any sky can look "blue".
> Sure, when tone deaf person is telling you that gangsta rap is best music ever or some infantile metal screaming is complex, then YES, we should take that with grain of salt. Unfortuntely, I'm not one of them.
> 
> So, how could you explain why even small kids can recognize today this piece and enjoy in it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it probably the most popular symphony mvt. by Mozart? Probably because of the theoretical rules in there? No, it's so popular because of its almost magnetic and likeable melody.
> It's the same with almost all the most popular pieces. There are some pieces that are on technical level great by Mozart to some 'elitists' but those pieces not so popular because they're not interesting to listen to.
> 
> Rules are there based on what people found that worked to the ears through the history. They didn't first invent the rules. First, they had to hear that it does work, so they turned it into rules... few hundreds years ago, but time did change.
> 
> Great amount of the most popular pop-rock musicians never learned any musical theory and they're still great musicians. The Beatles were for 20th Century what Beethoven was for early 19th c.
> Other musicians who are composing complex musical pieces like Yanni, Vangelis, Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer etc. also don't have 'proper' musical education or none at all. Does that mean that people are wrong when they think their music is great? Obviously if I would ask you.
> 
> How can their music be great if their ears are 'fooling them'? Is it great on technical/mathematical level or only to their ears? How can Vangelis prove that this piece is great?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can't because he doesn't have knowledge of musical theory. He composed it from the head. He still did receive an Oscar for his 'Chariots of Fire'.
> How can we say that this piece by Elfman is great?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole piece is actually pretty much based on 5 tones from intro, so it is even more cohesive than Rhapsody in Blue  but there are still many things going on.
> 
> *Well, guys, you have big problems. Music value is not based on theoretical rules, but on what works to the ears. It seems that you think it's the other way around - first, there were rules and after that - there were music. Yes, and I am the pope.
> 
> Once again, you don't have the slightest clue what music is all about and pretending that you can LEARN to get talent for composing is your self-delusion. Trying to convince me that I am self-deluded is only a proof more of your self-delusion. Many of you will never become composers... not because you have knowledge for musical theory, but because you want to hide your mediocre mentality and lack of talent behind it. *
> 
> Now, please... let me enjoy in my musical pieces that were glued together with all those "wrong and meaningless" chords. At least Captainnumber36 enjoyed my music more than anything else he heard here so far. That's enough for me even though he's not the only one.


That is a joke, right? How does knowledge of music theory and usage of music theory suddenly make you unable to feel music. One of my favorite symphonies of all time, Tchaikovsky Pathetique. He used music theory, most definitely, in his final Adagio. He LEARNED music theory, and USED IT in this symphony to create such a great emotional effect. I'm not trying to convince you that you are "self-deluded." In fact, I had not insulted you once in my posts here (whereas you completely lost your temper at me and turned to personal insults). The fact is, that music theory cannot hurt you, and when you use it correctly, you will become a much better compose. Don't tell me that I don't have the slightest clue what music is all about... Because, who does really have a clue? You tell me, what is music all about, then? Is it for entertainment? Is the purpose of music even to listen to? Is music somehow there to help us in times of need, to be able to provide emotion and comfort in a world of struggle? Or is music just a bunch of notes on a page? Who really knows for sure? I can tell you this- there is no real answer to "what is music all about?" I'm not telling you that you are a terrible composer, I'm just saying that although you are happy not to be learning music theory, it would help you a lot more. And PLEASE do not make an assumption that I have mediocre mentality and lack of talent. You know me, from- what- one to two posts? That's ridiculous that you would assume that. And besides, lack of talent for what? mentality in general? Now, that's just laughable that you would- after one post- come to the conclusion that I'm stupid and don't have any talent for anything.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> The purpose of music is mathematic? What is to you the purpose of music? Music must justify itself on the paper considering musical theories?
> Music exists for the listeners, for enjoyment and emotional/psychological fulfillment. Can you comprehend that?
> Theory is only a TOOL just like piano is a tool.. notes are tools. All those can't give you talent or ear for melody/harmony. Tools are not music. Tools are there to help you to learn more easily to create music.
> Some of you here those tools can even prevent to freely express and create anything meaningful.
> Without piano or keyboard you probably can't become composer, but without musical theory you can and thousands of great musicians already proved that.
> Is musical theory bad and wrong? No, but your views on music certainly are.


I never said the music is mathematic? I said that much of music is mathematic? For instance, is the purpose of playing the violin to draw the bow across the string and move your fingers? No, but math goes into the music and emotion that comes from that bow moving across the strings. And there is really no such thing as "talent," because it depends on how focused you are, how much you are doing it, and how determined you are. Music theory is a tool, yes, but then again, so is using your ear for music. Even the notes are tools, and the musicians, and the instruments. Everything is a tool that will eventually create the final sound. "Without piano or keyboard you probably can't become composer, but without musical theory you can and thousands of great musicians already proved that." Okay, Hector Berlioz. Amazing composer, he wrote The Damnation of Faust, Romeo and Juliet, Harold in Italy, and of course the famous Symphonie Fantastique. He never learned piano. Symphonie Fantastique does, of course use many theoretical elements (I don't know how it couldn't), but he also breaks the rules. I think it's safer to know the rules and break them on purpose to unknowingly break them. In this day and age, modern classical society thinks it's good to break the rules. If you wrote something Baroque, following strict rules, your work would probably not have much popularity. But if you broke the rules knowingly, and still created something popular and great, you would have a wonderful work. Is musical theory bad and wrong? No! In fact, having a knowledge of it can only help you!!!


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> You're right, but when I say ORIGINAL, I don't think about technicalities and inventing 'new tones'. I'm talking about how those music sounds and makes people feel. Sure, if you would pull out all parts of Yanni's and Vangelis music you can hear Greek ethno, classical elements, progressive music and new age, but all that together makes Vangelis unique.. it makes Yanni unique because those are their compositions.
> I can feel certain things when I listen to Yanni's music. I can't feel that even by musicians who are trying to sound like him. I feel something completely different when I'm listening to Vangelis and I never heard any other musician that sounds like Vangelis. They may compose the same style of music, but they will never be able to 'capture' Vangelis sound, quality and magic. That is what is originality. That is what music is all about.
> Even considering approach, the lack of musical theory (or even reading the music), using synths, etc. makes them even way more original than many composers of classical music who were mostly follow the rules and patterns of their times.


Hmm... name a classical composer that you think "mostly followed the rules and patterns of their times."


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> That is a joke, right? How does knowledge of music theory and usage of music theory suddenly make you unable to feel music. One of my favorite symphonies of all time, Tchaikovsky Pathetique. He used music theory, most definitely, in his final Adagio. He LEARNED music theory, and USED IT in this symphony to create such a great emotional effect. I'm not trying to convince you that you are "self-deluded." In fact, I had not insulted you once in my posts here (whereas you completely lost your temper at me and turned to personal insults). The fact is, that music theory cannot hurt you, and when you use it correctly, you will become a much better compose. Don't tell me that I don't have the slightest clue what music is all about... Because, who does really have a clue? You tell me, what is music all about, then? Is it for entertainment? Is the purpose of music even to listen to? Is music somehow there to help us in times of need, to be able to provide emotion and comfort in a world of struggle? Or is music just a bunch of notes on a page? Who really knows for sure? I can tell you this- there is no real answer to "what is music all about?" I'm not telling you that you are a terrible composer, I'm just saying that although you are happy not to be learning music theory, it would help you a lot more. And PLEASE do not make an assumption that I have mediocre mentality and lack of talent. You know me, from- what- one to two posts? That's ridiculous that you would assume that. And besides, lack of talent for what? mentality in general? Now, that's just laughable that you would- after one post- come to the conclusion that I'm stupid and don't have any talent for anything.


So, you DON'T KNOW WHAT MUSIC IS ABOUT, but you know that my chords don't work together? Please, tell me more about it. 
Yes, there were thousands of classical composer who were composing based on theory and rules and only few of them we want to listen to today. Those were mostly composers who broke the rules.

Ok, you do have a talent and I am wrong (good for you), but you say contradicting things. So, we don't know what music is all about, but we know that my piece would be better if I would blindly follow the rules for something we don't know what is all about? If you don't have a clue what is music, how could you tell me then that I should follow rules for it? There should be no rules then. 
Sure, the purpose of music is listening to it,... the purpose for sure is not writing it down. Writing it down is a tool, so you can hear it later during performance.

So, once again, there are thousands of inventive musicians in 20th century who doesn't have any kind of musical education and still, they're great and very important to music history and that is pretty much strong proof to beat your idea about 'music theory'.
I didn't say the music theory is bad or useless, but I did say that it isn't necessary to compose unique and brilliant music.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> I never said the music is mathematic? I said that much of music is mathematic? For instance, is the purpose of playing the violin to draw the bow across the string and move your fingers? No, but math goes into the music and emotion that comes from that bow moving across the strings. And there is really no such thing as "talent," because it depends on how focused you are, how much you are doing it, and how determined you are. Music theory is a tool, yes, but then again, so is using your ear for music. Even the notes are tools, and the musicians, and the instruments. Everything is a tool that will eventually create the final sound. "Without piano or keyboard you probably can't become composer, but without musical theory you can and thousands of great musicians already proved that." Okay, Hector Berlioz. Amazing composer, he wrote The Damnation of Faust, Romeo and Juliet, Harold in Italy, and of course the famous Symphonie Fantastique. He never learned piano. Symphonie Fantastique does, of course use many theoretical elements (I don't know how it couldn't), but he also breaks the rules. I think it's safer to know the rules and break them on purpose to unknowingly break them. In this day and age, modern classical society thinks it's good to break the rules. If you wrote something Baroque, following strict rules, your work would probably not have much popularity. But if you broke the rules knowingly, and still created something popular and great, you would have a wonderful work. Is musical theory bad and wrong? No! In fact, having a knowledge of it can only help you!!!


So, you're saying that with knowingly breaking the rules I can compose better composition than with unknowingly breaking the rules? Is that something you simply pull out of your head just like that or what?
It actually doesn't matter.

Ennio Morricone is my favorite composer (probably ever). He has great musical knowledge, theory and all that. He was also experimenting a lot. There are also thousands for other composers with his musical knowledge and experience and they aren't able to compose anything remotely good as he can. They are actually not able to compose better music than me 

I'm not saying that quality of music is realtive thing, but what you're talking about is actually pretty much relative. With or without musical theory people can create garbage and brilliant music.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> So, you DON'T KNOW WHAT MUSIC IS ABOUT, but you know that my chords don't work together? Please, tell me more about it.
> Yes, there were thousands of classical composer who were composing based on theory and rules and only few of them we want to listen to today. Those were mostly composers who broke the rules.
> 
> Ok, you do have a talent and I am wrong (good for you), but you say contradicting things. So, we don't know what music is all about, but we know that my piece would be better if I would blindly follow the rules for something we don't know what is all about? If you don't have a clue what is music, how could you tell me then that I should follow rules for it? There should be no rules then.
> Sure, the purpose of music is listening to it,... the purpose for sure is not writing it down. Writing it down is a tool, so you can hear it later during performance.
> 
> So, once again, there are thousands of inventive musicians in 20th century who doesn't have any kind of musical education and still, they're great and very important to music history and that is pretty much strong proof to beat your idea about 'music theory'.
> I didn't say the music theory is bad or useless, but I did say that it isn't necessary to compose unique and brilliant music.


There is no answer to what music is about, but there is answer to what works better than something else. There will never be a completely perfect piece of music (in my opinion the closest was Bach's Mass in B Minor), there will always be improvements to be made. And who says you would "blindly be following rules"?

And sorry, to compose something that will be remembered and cherished in history, you will need some music theory knowledge. Name some of your musicians that have composed unique and brilliant music. I'm just wondering. Because, I would be willing to bet many of them do or did use music theory.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> So, you're saying that with knowingly breaking the rules I can compose better composition than with unknowingly breaking the rules? Is that something you simply pull out of your head just like that or what?
> It actually doesn't matter.
> 
> Ennio Morricone is my favorite composer (probably ever). He has great musical knowledge, theory and all that. He was also experimenting a lot. There are also thousands for other composers with his musical knowledge and experience and they aren't able to compose anything remotely good as he can. They are actually not able to compose better music than me
> 
> I'm not saying that quality of music is realtive thing, but what you're talking about is actually pretty much relative. With or without musical theory people can create garbage and brilliant music.


No, what I'm saying is that while using rules you can bend rules, and create something unique rather than if you had not known music theory, and had not been able to know that a certain rule was existent, you would not know to break it, or bend it, or twist it, or whatever you want to do with it. Even Schoenberg had to know his music theory before going completely revolutionary.

And yes, maybe you need something more than just the knowledge of it, but the will, determination, and ability to use it. But it's not like you are either born with it or not, you can still acquire the skill to compose beautiful and theoretical music. That last statement is true. They can- but, the more knowledge they have, the less "garbage" it will be.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> There is no answer to what music is about, but there is answer to what works better than something else. There will never be a completely perfect piece of music (in my opinion the closest was Bach's Mass in B Minor), there will always be improvements to be made. And who says you would "blindly be following rules"?
> 
> And sorry, to compose something that will be remembered and cherished in history, you will need some music theory knowledge. Name some of your musicians that have composed unique and brilliant music. I'm just wondering. Because, I would be willing to bet many of them do or did use music theory.


You're repeating yourself, but it still isn't true.

Once again, Vangelis and Yanni are already part of the history... they don't know musical theory, they don't know how to write music down... they don't know anything and still... they're brilliant and better than many classical music composers.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> You're repeating yourself, but it still isn't true.
> 
> Once again, Vangelis and Yanni are already part of the history... they don't know musical theory, they don't know how to write music down... they don't know anything and still... they're brilliant and better than many classical music composers.


You're also repeating yourself...

Anyways, I did a search on both of these composers, and they both studied piano. So they probably knew some music theory.

And what classical composers are they better than? I listened to some of their music- Yanni I heard "The Rain Must Fall," and Vangelis I heard "The Blade Runner Theme." Both pieces bored me, and compared to the Zelenka Trio Sonatas- 



 I had been listening to previously, it was boring, repetitive, and I wouldn't choose to listen to it again. No variety, no real changes...

And I'm still waiting for a response to Post #141


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> No, what I'm saying is that while using rules you can bend rules, and create something unique rather than if you had not known music theory, and had not been able to know that a certain rule was existent, you would not know to break it, or bend it, or twist it, or whatever you want to do with it. Even Schoenberg had to know his music theory before going completely revolutionary.
> 
> And yes, maybe you need something more than just the knowledge of it, but the will, determination, and ability to use it. But it's not like you are either born with it or not, you can still acquire the skill to compose beautiful and theoretical music. That last statement is true. They can- but, the more knowledge they have, the less "garbage" it will be.


Schoenberg is actually pretty much dated. He was revolutionary back then and music returned to its tonality patterns. 
Term "classical music" doesn't mean anything today. Today's classical music is pop music and all genres in between. Back then Beethoven meant something, Mahler meant something. Today nobody except some self proclaimed elitists care about new 'classical music'. It doesn't have any impact, because such ideas as yours are dated. Classical music was over with Philip Glass. Nothing new was created and even if it was, nobody cares anymore.

Look around yourself.. you're in the 21st century and for the music of the 2nd half of 20th century the greatest progression was done by musicians without any musical theory knowledge - McCartney... Vangelis.... Zimmer etc. 
Times did change and you're not aware what's going around you.

People without musical education are changing the flow of musical history. That doesn't mean that modern pop music is great, but musical theory doesn't decide who will be great musician. Rules have been broken completely with Schoenberg and now they're being broken again by people who don't even need those dated rules.

There are many people who say that musical education kills the creativity. Unfortunately, that is pretty much true for today's standards.


----------



## Vasks

nikola said:


> Term "classical music" doesn't mean anything today. Today's classical music is pop music and all genres in between. Back then Beethoven meant something, Mahler meant something. Today nobody except some self proclaimed elitists care about new 'classical music'. It doesn't have any impact, because such ideas as yours are dated. Classical music was over with Philip Glass. Nothing new was created and even if it was, nobody cares anymore.


Talk about your head in the sand. Art music in the 21st century is alive and well. There are hundreds of new music festivals around the world annually. Just because you don't care for or know what modern Classical composers are doing does not mean you have the right to feel superior.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Schoenberg is actually pretty much dated. He was revolutionary back then and music returned to its tonality patterns.
> Term "classical music" doesn't mean anything today. Today's classical music is pop music and all genres in between. Back then Beethoven meant something, Mahler meant something. Today nobody except some self proclaimed elitists care about new 'classical music'. It doesn't have any impact, because such ideas as yours are dated. Classical music was over with Philip Glass. Nothing new was created and even if it was, nobody cares anymore.
> 
> Look around yourself.. you're in the 21st century and for the music of the 2nd half of 20th century the greatest progression was done by musicians without any musical theory knowledge - McCartney... Vangelis.... Zimmer etc.
> Times did change and you're not aware what's going around you.
> 
> People without musical education are changing the flow of musical history. That doesn't mean that modern pop music is great, but musical theory doesn't decide who will be great musician. Rules have been broken completely with Schoenberg and now they're being broken again by people who don't even need those dated rules.
> 
> There are many people who say that musical education kills the creativity. Unfortunately, that is pretty much true for today's standards.


Lol! Did you just call Schoenberg dated? And, no, not all music has returned to its tonality patterns. Schoenberg had a HUGE INFLUENCE on music, whether it seems so or not. Classical music, as stated by several people, really has no real definition. Bernstein's definition is my personal favorite- https://leonardbernstein.com/lectur...oung-peoples-concerts/what-is-classical-music

Glass's String Quartet No. 5 is one of my favorite string quartets, written in the early '90s. Classical music isn't over, and many people still like new classical music. People do care, actually. And don't say the "greatest progression," but the "most popular progression." McCartney I'm pretty sure had a knowledge of music theory, and I've already explained my feelings about Vangelis. Yes, times have changed, but that doesn't make it better. Times have changed, and people have voted for Trump. Does that make Trump a good president? I don't want to turn this into a political debate, but I don't think so.

People with musical education are changing the flow of musical history as well. And music theory, more often than not, really does decide. No one needs those rules, but if they had them, and used them, they would be better.

As for your last paragraph, I'm just speechless. How is true for today's standards? Look at Alma Deutscher! I can't say I love her music, but she is destined to bring something new to the table. And she has loads of music education.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> You're also repeating yourself...
> 
> Anyways, I did a search on both of these composers, and they both studied piano. So they probably knew some music theory.
> 
> And what classical composers are they better than? I listened to some of their music- Yanni I heard "The Rain Must Fall," and Vangelis I heard "The Blade Runner Theme." Both pieces bored me, and compared to the Zelenka Trio Sonatas-
> 
> 
> 
> I had been listening to previously, it was boring, repetitive, and I wouldn't choose to listen to it again. No variety, no real changes...
> 
> And I'm still waiting for a response to Post #141


LOL... they learned on their own to play it just like me. They don't know how to write music down. They actually don't know more than me. Vangelis even said that nobody can teach you how to compose music. Of course they learned how to play the piano, so they could play their own music. 
You heard only 2 pieces and you think that you now know something?

Zelenka trio sonatas is dated technical noodling. There are millions pieces like that. They are nice for what they are, but being stuck in 18th century really shows your problem. This music is BORING. We heard it thousand times and it's all the same over and over again... baroque noodling. WOW... that's great discovery.

This is music of our time:









You're only trying to defend your shallow and completely false philosophy that without musical theory there can be nothing of value done and that nonsense was proved wrong with thousands of greatest musicians without education during our lifetime.

You picked for 2 seconds 2 pieces of Vangelis and Yanni, then gave me link to that generic baroque comedy and now you think that you proved WHAT? Vangelis and Yanni music is too simple for your sacred ears that stuck in 18th century? Educate yourself more about music of 20th century.
Or, you can always use your time machine and return back into 18th century where you obviously belong.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> Lol! Did you just call Schoenberg dated? And, no, not all music has returned to its tonality patterns. Schoenberg had a HUGE INFLUENCE on music, whether it seems so or not. Classical music, as stated by several people, really has no real definition. Bernstein's definition is my personal favorite- https://leonardbernstein.com/lectur...oung-peoples-concerts/what-is-classical-music
> 
> Glass's String Quartet No. 5 is one of my favorite string quartets, written in the early '90s. Classical music isn't over, and many people still like new classical music. People do care, actually. And don't say the "greatest progression," but the "most popular progression." McCartney I'm pretty sure had a knowledge of music theory, and I've already explained my feelings about Vangelis. Yes, times have changed, but that doesn't make it better. Times have changed, and people have voted for Trump. Does that make Trump a good president? I don't want to turn this into a political debate, but I don't think so.
> 
> People with musical education are changing the flow of musical history as well. And music theory, more often than not, really does decide. No one needs those rules, but if they had them, and used them, they would be better.
> 
> As for your last paragraph, I'm just speechless. How is true for today's standards? Look at Alma Deutscher! I can't say I love her music, but she is destined to bring something new to the table. And she has loads of music education.


Yes, he influenced a lot of music and yes, some atonality is still used and yes, Schoenberg is still DATED.

No, people don't care. Only 'elitists' care. Nobody listens to new classical music and it doesn't affect anything. I heard music of wannabe classical composers on this board and it mostly sucks.

Alma who? Yes, infant will save your shallow philosophy.

You're the one trying to prove that without musical theory there can't be composed anyhting of value. I'm not the one saying that with musical theory can't be composed anything of value. 
Now that you lost in this conversation and are trying to diminsh the value of artists like Vangelis and Yanni, the only thing that remains for you is to start talking about Trump.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> LOL... they learned on their own to play it just like me. They don't know how to write music down. They actually don't know more than me. *Vangelis even said that nobody can teach you how to compose music.* Of course they learned how to play the piano, so they could play their own music.
> You heard only 2 pieces and you think that you now know something?
> 
> Zelenka trio sonatas is dated technical noodling. There are millions pieces like that. They are nice for what they are, but being stuck in 18th century really shows your problem. This music is BORING. We heard it thousand times and it's all the same over and over again... baroque noodling. WOW... that's great discovery.
> 
> This is music of our time:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're only trying to defend your shallow and completely false philosophy that without musical theory there can be nothing of value done and that nonsense was proved wrong with thousands of greatest musicians without education during our lifetime.
> 
> You picked for 2 seconds 2 pieces of Vangelis and Yanni, then gave me link to that generic baroque comedy and now you think that you proved WHAT? Vangelis and Yanni music is too simple for your sacred ears that stuck in 18th century? Educate yourself more about music of 20th century.
> Or, you can always use your time machine and return back into 18th century where you obviously belong.


Well, everything Vangelis says or composes isn't perfect, and that just isn't true. And if I don't know Vangelis and Yanni from two pieces (maybe I don't, but I was analyzing the pieces, not the composer), then how do you know Zelenka from one of his trio sonatas, or maybe the couple seconds you heard before closing out. And if you think Zelenka, and other Baroque composers, are just noodling, then your musical taste is thoroughly messed up. You think I'm stuck in the 18th century? I already mentioned listening to Glass's string quartets and enjoying them. Baroque noodling... Maybe listen to the music and follow along on the score and maybe you'll hear the actual talent it takes into writing this kind of stuff.

I never ever said that without musical theory there can be nothing of value done. What I'm saying- I've said it so much- is that with music theory you will get better, and that it will make you a better composer, and do greater things. Generic baroque comedy? At least I actually listened to Vangelis and Yanni in focus. Here's Mussorgsky's Night on Bald Mountain, which I'm listening to now. 




Please, tell me that those two pieces by Yanni and Vangelis are better than this. I don't think anything is too simple (I love Satie), but simplicity, when used wrong, can be boring- Vangelis and Yanni's pieces are BORING to me. "Educate yourself more about music of 20th century." Hmm.. Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Debussy, Mahler, Shostakovich, Gershwin, Copland, Adams, Glass, Ravel, Bartok, Janacek, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, etc. All composers I know and love- and you're telling me that I don't know anything about music of the 20th century. I enjoy music from the 1500s to the 21rst century. I like non-classical music, such as some pieces by Queen, The Beatles, and a lot of jazz. Ragtime, too, I enjoy. It's not that I'm too good for Vangelis's and Yannis' music- it's that it's plain boring to me, and I'm not going to waste my time listening to music I just don't like.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Yes, he influenced a lot of music and yes, some atonality is still used and yes, Schoenberg is still DATED.
> 
> No, people don't care. Only 'elitists' care. Nobody listens to new classical music and it doesn't affect anything. I heard music of wannabe classical composers on this board and it mostly sucks.
> 
> Alma who? Yes, infant will save your shallow philosophy.
> 
> You're the one trying to prove that without musical theory there can't be composed anyhting of value. I'm not the one saying that with musical theory can't be composed anything of value.
> Now that you lost in this conversation and are trying to diminsh the value of artists like Vangelis and Yanni, the only thing that remains for you is to start talking about Trump.


I can't agree that Schoenberg is dated. Nobody listens to new classical music... um, there's new pieces getting performed at the BBC Proms, and thousands of people are going to it! Until you are the only person left on earth, that statement is not true. As I said above, you can compose stuff of value, but not anything truly amazing amazing. And I'm not the only one trying to prove that. Right now, in this hour, yes- but other people have been.


----------



## Tchaikov6

And you still have not responded to #141. I take it you don't have an answer...

Edit: Listening to the final moments of Night on Bald Mountain- absolutely amazing...


----------



## nikola

I love both Night on Bald Mountain and Blade Runner Theme. 
So, what's your problem!?

It's not me who must prove that without musical theory you can compose brilliant stuff. Those musicians proved it many many times. I rest my case. What you're saying is extremely idiotic. 
Your view on music is narrow and lobotomized. Do you understand that? Of course not. 

To sum things up - you think that without musical theory nothing of meaning and great can be composed. That is simply not only wrong, but stupid statement too. It says much about you and confirm everything I said so far - snobbish, talentless and deluded classical music lovers on this board thinking that they actually 'know' something.

The only worst thing than you are snobbish, talentless and deluded modal and free jazz lovers. 
So, you're not the worst. :lol:

Stop wasting my time with your nonsense.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> And you still have not responded to #141. I take it you don't have an answer...
> 
> Edit: Listening to the final moments of Night on Bald Mountain- absolutely amazing...


Haydn.
80% of Mozart's music is nothing more than Mozart being Mozart. His best work he made a few years before he died. Everything else is exercising on boring predictability.
But to you what Mozart composed when he was 10 is probably much better than anything Vangelis composed.

I don't have will to mention all classical composers that almost bored me to death.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> I love both Night on Bald Mountain and Blade Runner Theme.
> So, what's your problem!?
> 
> It's not me who must prove that without musical theory you can compose brilliant stuff. Those musicians proved it many many times. I rest my case. What you're saying is extremely idiotic.
> Your view on music is narrow and lobotomized. Do you understand that? Of course not.
> 
> To sum things up - you think that without musical theory nothing of meaning and great can be composed. That is simply not only wrong, but stupid statement too. It says much about you and confirm everything I said so far - snobbish, talentless and deluded classical music lovers on this board thinking that they actually 'know' something.
> 
> The only worst thing than you are snobbish, talentless and deluded modal and free jazz lovers.
> So, you're not the worst. :lol:
> 
> Stop wasting my time with your nonsense.


Explain to me- my view on music... Music is such a broad topic, you only know about 10 percent of my view on music. All I'm saying is that an understanding of music theory- scales, chord structures, forms, pitch, rhythm, melody, etc.- it will help you, and I don't know why you're so proud not to have it.

And I've completely (and calmly) explained my response to that second paragraph ("To sum things up..."). You can go back and read if you really don't understand what I am saying. Okay, if we're basing how we think of other people from sending messages through a thread online, I could conclude that you are an aggressive, arrogant, foolish, harsh, indecisive, inconsistent, narrow-minded, patronizing, quick-tempered, and vague person. You are also being so hypocritical in your statement. Remember, nothing is either good or bad, it's only what you make it out to be. So both of us, I think, are making utter fools of ourselves in this silly argument. I've proven my point above, and I don't need to again.


----------



## nikola

I must admit that I never heard classical piece that made me feel like these from Vangelis:










or these by Yanni:









I feel sorry for all of you who think that complexity for the sake of complexity is better music. It can only feed your ego, but not your soul.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> Explain to me- my view on music... Music is such a broad topic, you only know about 10 percent of my view on music. All I'm saying is that an understanding of music theory- scales, chord structures, forms, pitch, rhythm, melody, etc.- it will help you, and I don't know why you're so proud not to have it.
> 
> And I've completely (and calmly) explained my response to that second paragraph ("To sum things up..."). You can go back and read if you really don't understand what I am saying. Okay, if we're basing how we think of other people from sending messages through a thread online, I could conclude that you are an aggressive, arrogant, foolish, harsh, indecisive, inconsistent, narrow-minded, patronizing, quick-tempered, and vague person. You are also being so hypocritical in your statement. Remember, nothing is either good or bad, it's only what you make it out to be. So both of us, I think, are making utter fools of ourselves in this silly argument. I've proven my point above, and I don't need to again.


I understand perfectly everything you say. You are free to conclude about me whatever you want, but you're stil trying to prove that without musical theory there can't be truly great and memorable music. 
That is wrong. Should I really insult you now to accent how wrong and stupid that is?

You didn't prove your point. You didn't prove anything, because what you say is simply trying to diminish the value of all brilliant artists of 20th century who are even acknowledged by most of the classical musicians and critics too. 
Even Bernstein loved The Beatles and point to how creative they were composing even the things that were even never composed before in the history.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Haydn.
> 80% of Mozart's music is nothing more than Mozart being Mozart. His best work he made a few years before he died. Everything else is exercising on boring predictability.
> But to you what Mozart composed when he was 10 is probably much better than anything Vangelis composed.
> 
> I don't have will to mention all classical composers that almost bored me to death.


Haydn:
"He was instrumental in the development of chamber music such as the piano trio[2] and his contributions to musical form have earned him the sobriquets "Father of the Symphony" and "Father of the String Quartet"." Wikipedia.

James Webster summarizes Haydn's role in the history of classical music as follows: "He excelled in every musical genre.... He is familiarly known as the 'father of the symphony' and could with greater justice be thus regarded for the string quartet; no other composer approaches his combination of productivity, quality and historical importance in these genres."

"Franz Joseph Haydn was among the creators of the fundamental genres of classical music, and his influence upon later composers is immense. Haydn's most celebrated pupil was Ludwig van Beethoven, and his musical form casts a huge shadow over the music of subsequent composers such as Schubert, Mendelssohn and Brahms." Biography.com

"Joseph Haydn, in full Franz Joseph Haydn (born March 31, 1732, Rohrau, Austria-died May 31, 1809, Vienna), Austrian composer who was one of the most important figures in the development of the Classical style in music during the 18th century. He helped establish the forms and styles for the string quartet and the symphony." Brittanica.

I could have put those things in my own words, but I did a quick search on Haydn and those were the first three pages.

Mozart:

Actually, I do prefer Vangelis's piece that I heard to Mozart's 10-year pieces, lol.

Anyways;

"He composed more than 600 works, many acknowledged as pinnacles of symphonic, concertante, chamber, operatic, and choral music. He is among the most enduringly popular of classical composers, and his influence is profound on subsequent Western art music. Ludwig van Beethoven composed his own early works in the shadow of Mozart, and Joseph Haydn wrote: "posterity will not see such a talent again in 100 years"." Wikipedia.

"Progressively, and in large part at the hands of Mozart himself, the contrapuntal complexities of the late Baroque emerged once more, moderated and disciplined by new forms, and adapted to a new aesthetic and social milieu. Mozart was a versatile composer, and wrote in every major genre, including symphony, opera, the solo concerto, chamber music including string quartet and string quintet, and the piano sonata. These forms were not new, but Mozart advanced their technical sophistication and emotional reach. He almost single-handedly developed and popularized the Classical piano concerto. He wrote a great deal of religious music, including large-scale masses, as well as dances, divertimenti, serenades, and other forms of light entertainment."
Wikipedia.

"It is only through recognizing the violence and sensuality at the center of Mozart's work that we can make a start towards a comprehension of his structures and an insight into his magnificence. In a paradoxical way, Schumann's superficial characterization of the G minor Symphony can help us to see Mozart's daemon more steadily. In all of Mozart's supreme expressions of suffering and terror, there is something shockingly voluptuous." Charles Rosen

"A prolific artist, Austrian composer Wolfgang Mozart created a string of operas, concertos, symphonies and sonatas that profoundly shaped classical music. His music presented a bold expression, often times complex and dissonant, and required high technical mastery from the musicians who performed it. His works remained secure and popular throughout the 19th century, as biographies about him were written and his music enjoyed constant performances and renditions by other musicians. His work influenced many composers that followed -- most notably Beethoven." Biography.com

"Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, in full Johann Chrysostom Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, baptized as Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart (born January 27, 1756, Salzburg, archbishopric of Salzburg [Austria]-died December 5, 1791, Vienna), Austrian composer, widely recognized as one of the greatest composers in the history of Western music. With Haydn and Beethoven he brought to its height the achievement of the Viennese Classical school. Unlike any other composer in musical history, he wrote in all the musical genres of his day and excelled in every one. His taste, his command of form, and his range of expression have made him seem the most universal of all composers" Brittanica

Enough said.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> I must admit that I never heard classical piece that made me feel like these from Vangelis:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or these by Yanni:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for all of you who think that complexity for the sake of complexity is better music. It can only feed your ego, but not your soul.


I already mentioned that I quite like simple music... and I'll admit, that first piece by Vangelis was tolerable. But after that, they all sounded the same, from the very beginning. I don't like complexity for the sake of complexity, although complexity can be very enjoyable. I like certain music because I enjoy it more. It has nothing to do with elitist, snobby, thoughts.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> I understand perfectly everything you say. You are free to conclude about me whatever you want, but you're stil trying to prove that without musical theory there can't be truly great and memorable music.
> That is wrong. Should I really insult you now to accent how wrong and stupid that is?
> 
> You didn't prove your point. You didn't prove anything, because what you say is simply trying to diminish the value of all brilliant artists of 20th century who are even acknowledged by most of the classical musicians and critics too.
> Even Bernstein loved The Beatles and point to how creative they were composing even the things that were even never composed before in the history.


Uhhhh.... you really don't get what I'm saying! I give up... music theory will help you, and I can even hear it in those pieces by Vangelis and Yanni that you linked. They used music theory. Good for them, even though I didn't really like it. So far you've named about 2 artists that legitimately didn't know music theory. Who else? I feel like you're exaggerating, honestly.

I love the Beatles! They knew their music theory!


----------



## nikola

So, you don't have your own opinion about their music? Do other people think for you? Establishment think for you and feed your elitist and sacred mind and ears?
Yes, I know they were influental on music. Of course they were I still didn't hear anything from Haydn except that hymn that is worth listening and that he wanted to hear while dying. He was only a pupil following trends. Mozart was for sure better than him in that.

I started listening to all 180 Mozart's CD's I have. It was one of the most excruciating experiences of my life. All those shallow and predictable tecnical exercise and the same musical patterns over and over again... it was almost like listening to the blues - eversthing is same, yet 'different'.
He made a 100 to 200 brilliant pieces. The rest of thousands of those are mostly fillers for you, dear Tchaikov6.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> So, you don't have your own opinion about their music? Do other people think for you? Establishment think for you and feed your elitist and sacred mind and ears?
> Yes, I know they were influental on music. Of course they were I still didn't hear anything from Haydn except that hymn that is worth listening and that he wanted to hear while dying. He was only a pupil following trends. Mozart was for sure better than him in that.
> 
> I started listening to all 180 Mozart's CD's I have. It was one of the most excruciating experiences of my life. All those shallow and predictable tecnical exercise and the same musical patterns over and over again... it was almost like listening to the blues - eversthing is same, yet 'different'.
> He made a 100 to 200 brilliant pieces. The rest of thousands of those are mostly fillers for you, dear Tchaikov6.


Lol... following predictable trends. 100 to 200 brilliant pieces... yes, he did. Correct. he pretty much wrote around 700. I don't enjoy everything by Mozart. "Same musical patterns over and over again..." that reminds me of Vangelis and Yanni, actually. I don't even understand the first paragraph.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> I already mentioned that I quite like simple music... and I'll admit, that first piece by Vangelis was tolerable. But after that, they all sounded the same, from the very beginning. I don't like complexity for the sake of complexity, although complexity can be very enjoyable. I like certain music because I enjoy it more. It has nothing to do with elitist, snobby, thoughts.


You didn't even had the time to listen to those. :lol:
You're just making things up. The conversation with you is like a conversation with 5 year old kid. Whatever valid argument you receive you will simply replace with something else and change the direction of the conversation so you can pull the interlocutor in your neverending nonsense, so your basic false statement wouldn't sound so terrible wrong and you hope it will be forgotten, but yes, your statement that without musical knowledge you can't compose anything great is still wrong and moronic thing to say.

I have the right not to like some pieces or all classical pieces of some classical composers. You have the right to dislike Vangelis, Yanni or whatever you consider to be crap, but to say stupid things about musical theory, thousands of musicians without it, and nonsense about "wrong chords" is simply and plain - stupid and once again, it shows how fake you are.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> Lol... following predictable trends. 100 to 200 brilliant pieces... yes, he did. Correct. he pretty much wrote around 700. I don't enjoy everything by Mozart. "Same musical patterns over and over again..." that reminds me of Vangelis and Yanni, actually. I don't even understand the first paragraph.


You proved once again that you're deaf. Actually, Mozart was way more predictable than Vangelis or Yanni could ever be. And that is ok because there were no other music for him to hear, so everything he based his music on was his own music along with trend that sounded exactly the same as his music.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> You didn't even had the time to listen to those. :lol:
> You're just making things up. The conversation with you is like a conversation with 5 year old kid. Whatever valid argument you receive you will simply replace with something else and change the direction of the conversation so you can pull the interlocutor in your neverending nonsense, so your basic false statement wouldn't sound so terrible wrong and you hope it will be forgotten, but yes, your statement that without musical knowledge you can't compose anything great is still wrong and moronic thing to say.
> 
> I have the right not to like some pieces or all classical pieces of some classical composers. You have the right to dislike Vangelis, Yanni or whatever you consider to be crap, but to say stupid things about musical theory, thousands of musicians without it, and nonsense about "wrong chords" is simply and plain - stupid and once again, it shows how fake you are.


I'm listening right now, fyi. And please, did you listen to those Zelenka sonatas? Actually, the opposite is true of you when it comes to when you receive a valid argument _you_ change the direction. My statement that with music theory you will become a much better and greater composer than you were, and that nothing that is absolutely significant in music history will be composed without the usage of it. I have the right not to like some pieces or all pieces of people like Yanni and Vangelis. Yeah, the chords do sound a little off to me, not exactly enjoyable. Is that a problem? About my perception of a piece? paulc, earlier, pointed out exactly theoretically what was wrong with it, I didn't. Yep, I'm fake. Who are these thousands?!!?

Anyways, perhaps this whole argument is fake. If I had to be honest, I would say that both of our arguments have serious holes in them. No one is ever going to truly win this. It's a stupid argument.


----------



## nikola

Yes, you are both fake because I simply have better hearing considering music, especially mine. There is nothing OFF except your ability to understand what you can hear. I guess if you're slightly tone deaf that you can hear in my piece things that are off. It is probably normal thing for you guys


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> You proved once again that you're deaf. Actually, Mozart was way more predictable than Vangelis or Yanni could ever be. And that is ok because there were no other music for him to hear, so everything he based his music on was his own music along with trend that sounded exactly the same as his music.


Mozart, more predictable. Hmmm... that's close, and maybe in a lot of his pieces- but the thing is, predictability does not make music bad or good in many cases. Mozart makes up for many of his predictable pieces note-wise with brilliant twists in his music. Take for instance, his Musical Joke- brilliant, from the first 7 measures.

Name one other piece in this trend that sounds like the last movement of his Jupiter Symphony. Or the 20th Piano Concerto. Or A Musical Joke. Or the Requiem. Dies Irae in the Requiem is just simply stunning, and the Lacrimosa.

Maybe Yannis, Vangelis, and Mozart are all unique in their own ways. They all used music theory, and they all got some sort of education in it. I prefer Mozart greatly to the other two, but, if you enjoy them- to each their own!

(Let's keep this conversation polite).


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Yes, you are both fake because I simply have better hearing considering music, especially mine. There is nothing OFF except your ability to understand what you can hear. I guess if you're slightly tone deaf that you can hear in my piece things that are off. It is probably normal thing for you guys


First of all- there's no true such thing as tone deaf.

And let me get this straight- based on my posts, the words typed on a screen, you're coming to a conclusion that you have much better hearing than me. And you're calling me snobbish in the process...

Look, I am young, and my writing skills are probably not very good- I am not getting my point across very well. But I know that if I could convey it clearer, I would be right in this conversation.


----------



## nikola

Yes, feel free to change opinion about everything during the conversation.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Yes, feel free to change opinion about everything during the conversation.


You saying that to yourself or me? Or both of us?


----------



## Tchaikov6

There was nothing in Post 169 except insults about me. Yes, I suppose I did change the topic... I didn't insult you at all!


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> First of all- there's no true such thing as tone deaf.
> 
> And let me get this straight- based on my posts, the words typed on a screen, you're coming to a conclusion that you have much better hearing than me. And you're calling me snobbish in the process...
> 
> Look, I am young, and my writing skills are probably not very good- I am not getting my point across very well. But I know that if I could convey it clearer, I would be right in this conversation.


Yes, there is such thing as being tone deaf. There are people who couldn't sing with correct melody even the most simple things like this one:




Many people are tone deaf to certain extent. Even you and me.

Yes, you're right about 2nd paragraph.

You're just lost. It's ok. It happens to everybody sometimes.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> There was nothing in Post 169 except insults about me. Yes, I suppose I did change the topic... I didn't insult you at all!


No... you're only fake with your psihlosophy. 
Sorry if you think those are insults. Maybe you're just able to pull out that from me. You just don't know when to stop. And no, there isn't anything OFF in my piece


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> You saying that to yourself or me? Or both of us?


You really want me to answer to every one of your posts. Now, do you?


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Yes, there is such thing as being tone deaf. There are people who couldn't sing with correct melody even the most simple things like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people are tone deaf to certain extent. Even you and me.
> 
> Yes, you're right about 2nd paragraph.
> 
> You're just lost. It's ok. It happens to everybody sometimes.


LOL! "Yes you're right about the 2nd paragraph." Wow, you must have magical powers- the ability to suddenly know how someone hears and how they interpret music through their posts! If they're tone deaf! Wow! If anybody's lost it's you.


----------



## nikola

Dear Tchaikov6, the conversation is over. Bye


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> No... you're only fake with your psihlosophy.
> Sorry if you think those are insults. Maybe you're just able to pull out that from me. You just don't know when to stop. And no, there isn't anything OFF in my piece


Your piece needs improvement, in politer words.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> So, you're saying that with knowingly breaking the rules I can compose better composition than with unknowingly breaking the rules? Is that something you simply pull out of your head just like that or what?
> It actually doesn't matter.
> 
> Ennio Morricone is my favorite composer (probably ever). He has great musical knowledge, theory and all that. He was also experimenting a lot. There are also thousands for other composers with his musical knowledge and experience and they aren't able to compose anything remotely good as he can. They are actually not able to compose better music than me
> 
> I'm not saying that quality of music is realtive thing, but what you're talking about is actually pretty much relative. With or without musical theory people can create garbage and brilliant music.


Morricone was original in the use of instruments and sounds, no doubt about that. His music itself is pleasing to the ear and straight forward, while not ground breaking, is very well put together. I hear Vangelis and Yanni differently. Vangelis has a gift for evoking moods with sounds, but the music itself is weak. For me, I don't particularly like the run-of-mill Classical composers (better for me not to mention who), but I still find them way more listenable than Yanni. Listening to him is like listening to Taylor Swift, at least for me.

One last note on music theory training from me. Way I see it is you can't really judge until you've been through it. To you it probably sounds like brainwashing, but in my perspective, it only broadens one's horizons, and puts them in a better position to judge objectively, since it examines things from a different angle than plain intuition. It may sound scary, because it can make you like music you didn't imagine you'd ever could or should like, and find music you like now becoming banal. But it also makes you appreciate some composers you already like more, sometimes much more. it is stepping into the light, if you gave it a real chance, and don't like or agree with it, you can always go back, but evidently from this board, no one wants to go back.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> Morricone was original in the use of instruments and sounds, no doubt about that. His music itself is pleasing to the ear and straight forward, while not ground breaking, is very well put together. I hear Vangelis and Yanni differently. Vangelis has a gift for evoking moods with sounds, but the music itself is weak. For me, I don't particularly like the run-of-mill Classical composers (better for me not to mention who), but I still find them way more listenable than Yanni. Listening to him is like listening to Taylor Swift, at least for me.
> 
> One last note on music theory training from me. Way I see it is you can't really judge until you've been through it. To you it probably sounds like brainwashing, but in my perspective, it only broadens one's horizons, and puts them in a better position to judge objectively, since it examines things from a different angle than plain intuition. It may sound scary, because it can make you like music you didn't imagine you'd ever could or should like, and find music you like now becoming banal. But it also makes you appreciate some composers you already like more, sometimes much more. it is stepping into the light, if you gave it a real chance, and don't like or agree with it, you can always go back, but evidently from this board, no one wants to go back.


My dad was opera and classical music lover. I certainly know more about classical music than you know about Vangelis, Yanni or Morricone.
To say that Morricone music is straight-forward means only you know nothing about his music. Just simple fact. He composed music for over 600 movies and TV series. He changed film music on many levels. He used experimental sounds and he was first one to give every character in the movie a theme. He was composing atonal, classical, orchestral, jazz, lounge, western and many different styles for movies. Before that he changed the way pop songs are arranged. 
Even if he is a straightforward many times, he is still better melody maker than 99% of classical composers. You don't trust me? Ask Quentin Tarantino 

Everything you say about Vangelis, Yanni and Morricone is nothing more than prejudice based on an idea that classical music is superior because it relies on being more complex.
To you, classical music is by default better. It simply isn't. It's your subjective belief. That's not how QUALITY works. 
Quality is not determined by complexity, but by talent and creativity.

You're talking about classical music like I know nothing about it. Trust me, the more I listen to it, the less I like it. To enter that world of technical gymnastics really leaves me mostly empty and exhausted. To pretend that someone like thousands and thousands of those pieces and to claim that they are great only because they are 'complex' serves only to them to feed their illusion of superiority. 
It actually makes them look pretty small.

Classical music in all its beauty and complexity actually opened a door for every mediocrity to exercise with tones. Same with free jazz, metal and everything else that has thousands of 'artists'.
But Vangelis is only one and actually millions of people around the world love his music because they can feel it. He is pretty much unique at composing brilliant little themes and then build it into something out of this world. 
While listening to majority of classical music there is nothing to feel, nothing to experience. The more tones you throw in there, the more awful it sounds. 
If you want to compose something that is really meaningful and complex, you actually should be really talented and most of the people who are trying to compose 'complex music' are actually not able to do that. They can follow all possible rules and their music will still sound like they're trying to rape the brain of the listener.

Even your 3 pieces... I was listening to those, but I didn't comment. You're pretty much lost in the idea to make something complex, unusual, atonal and still good. Unfortunatelly, your pieces are even atonal on levels where they shouldn't be. Either you really don't care or you believe that throwing 'unexpected and challenging to listen to' motifs will make them brilliant. I see that some consider your studies to be 'brilliant'. Well, sorry, but to my ears there is nothing brilliant there. There are some parts that could probably promise, but you don't develop them and you deconstructed 2nd piece (in a bad way) simply because you have that mindset that everything must be unexpected and complex to be good. Unfortunatelly, I must tell you that you're not creatively free and with this mindset you'll never be. 
Even if you perfect that style, you should put much effort into creating something meaningful, original and the most important - GOOD TO LISTEN TO no matter how atonal, tonal, simple or complex it may be. I know that this are only your first 3 pieces, so it's not wise to judge, but the problem with those pieces is not so much with how they sound. It is much more within your head. You must find your own voice and not to try to put universal amount of tonal and atonal complexity into 40 seconds. 
Maybe Ligeti and something like this could be some kind of inspiration for you:





And remember, every truly great artist can always recognize greatness even in the smallest pop song or modern instrumental piece if needed - ABBA, Elton John, Vangelis, Morricone, Yanni, Billy Joel, The Beatles etc etc etc. You're not able to recognize their greatness, because you obviously didn't evolve above your own ego and prejudices and you're showing that with your every post. Even Leonard Bernstein composed little quality pop songs for the musical West Side Story. Once he saw Billy Joel in the audience he told him that he should also compose music for musicals. He was praising the quality, originality and creativity of The Beatles many times.

Saying for Vangelis that his music is 'weak', that Morricone's music is 'pleasing to the ear' or that Yanni 'sounds like Taylor Swift' actually shows that you're not material to be a good composer. You're filled with nonsensical prejudices that have nothing to do with quality of the music.
It's the same as saying that Beethoven's best symphonies are ok, but somehow boring. 
I've heard many classical music... there are thousands of brilliant pieces from Mozart, Beethoven, Dvorak, Grieg, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Wagner... but once again... to say that their music is way better than Vangelis or Morricone is like saying that one novel is better than other one because it has more pages. It's nonsense. Nothing more or less. It's not valid argument. It's prejudice of self-delusion based on the idea of own superiorior taste.


----------



## Captainnumber36

There is no wrong or right way to go about composing. It was wrong for those who support music theory to suggest there is something objectively off about our pieces, when it is just off by their standard of evaluation. Not everyone has the same standard of evaluation, and some people were downright rude and forceful with their objectively correct answers and observations. I think that is why Nikola is re-acting so emotionally.

I think in most cases, those who follow music theory get stuck in it and it is a barrier. They overthink things instead of focusing on expressing themselves. That is my main goal with art in general, to express myself, perhaps that isn't everyone's goal, but it is mine.

I do think Mozart is repetitive with a lot of his ideas, and agree with Nikola.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> There is no wrong or right way to go about composing. It was wrong for those who support music theory to suggest there is something objectively off about our pieces, when it is just off by their standard of evaluation. Not everyone has the same standard of evaluation, and some people were downright rude and forceful with their objectively correct answers and observations. I think that is why Nikola is re-acting so emotionally.
> 
> I think in most cases, those who follow music theory get stuck in it and it is a barrier. They overthink things instead of focusing on expressing themselves. That is my main goal with art in general, to express myself, perhaps that isn't everyone's goal, but it is mine.
> 
> I do think Mozart is repetitive with a lot of his ideas, and agree with Nikola.


Nikola was the one being rude and insulting, so don't put this on me. Off was probably the wrong word for my description, but I'm perfectly allowed to do that. That is what Today's Composers section is about- posting music and expecting comments- either good or bad. Both sides of the argument have major holes, and reading back on the posts much of the stuff me and Nicola said was pretty ridiculous. Now we're just talking in circles. It's time to just end this discussion.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> Nikola was the one being rude and insulting, so don't put this on me. Off was probably the wrong word for my description, but I'm perfectly allowed to do that. That is what Today's Composers section is about- posting music and expecting comments- either good or bad. Both sides of the argument have major holes, and reading back on the posts much of the stuff me and Nicola said was pretty ridiculous. Now we're just talking in circles. It's time to just end this discussion.


You are allowed, but it's almost musical discrimination in a way.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> You are allowed, but it's almost musical discrimination in a way.


How??? If I don't like a chord, and it doesn't sound right to my ears, do I just have to tell you it's good instead?


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> My dad was opera and classical music lover. I certainly know more about classical music than you know about Vangelis, Yanni or Morricone.
> To say that Morricone music is straight-forward means only you know nothing about his music. Just simple fact. He composed music for over 600 movies and TV series. He changed film music on many levels. He used experimental sounds and he was first one to give every character in the movie a theme. He was composing atonal, classical, orchestral, jazz, lounge, western and many different styles for movies. Before that he changed the way pop songs are arranged.
> Even if he is a straightforward many times, he is still better melody maker than 99% of classical composers. You don't trust me? Ask Quentin Tarantino
> 
> Everything you say about Vangelis, Yanni and Morricone is nothing more than prejudice based on an idea that classical music is superior because it relies on being more complex.
> To you, classical music is by default better. It simply isn't. It's your subjective belief. That's not how QUALITY works.
> Quality is not determined by complexity, but by talent and creativity.
> 
> You're talking about classical music like I know nothing about it. Trust me, the more I listen to it, the less I like it. To enter that world of technical gymnastics really leaves me mostly empty and exhausted. To pretend that someone like thousands and thousands of those pieces and to claim that they are great only because they are 'complex' serves only to them to feed their illusion of superiority.
> It actually makes them look pretty small.
> 
> Classical music in all its beauty and complexity actually opened a door for every mediocrity to exercise with tones. Same with free jazz, metal and everything else that has thousands of 'artists'.
> But Vangelis is only one and actually millions of people around the world love his music because they can feel it. He is pretty much unique at composing brilliant little themes and then build it into something out of this world.
> *While listening to majority of classical music there is nothing to feel, nothing to experience. The more tones you throw in there, the more awful it sounds. *
> If you want to compose something that is really meaningful and complex, you actually should be really talented and most of the people who are trying to compose 'complex music' are actually not able to do that. They can follow all possible rules and their music will still sound like they're trying to rape the brain of the listener.
> 
> Even your 3 pieces... I was listening to those, but I didn't comment. You're pretty much lost in the idea to make something complex, unusual, atonal and still good. Unfortunatelly, your pieces are even atonal on levels where they shouldn't be. Either you really don't care or you believe that throwing 'unexpected and challenging to listen to' motifs will make them brilliant. I see that some consider your studies to be 'brilliant'. Well, sorry, but to my ears there is nothing brilliant there. There are some parts that could probably promise, but you don't develop them and you deconstructed 2nd piece (in a bad way) simply because you have that mindset that everything must be unexpected and complex to be good. Unfortunatelly, I must tell you that you're not creatively free and with this mindset you'll never be.
> Even if you perfect that style, you should put much effort into creating something meaningful, original and the most important - GOOD TO LISTEN TO no matter how atonal, tonal, simple or complex it may be. I know that this are only your first 3 pieces, so it's not wise to judge, but the problem with those pieces is not so much with how they sound. It is much more within your head. You must find your own voice and not to try to put universal amount of tonal and atonal complexity into 40 seconds.
> Maybe Ligeti and something like this could be some kind of inspiration for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And remember, every truly great artist can always recognize greatness even in the smallest pop song or modern instrumental piece if needed - ABBA, Elton John, Vangelis, Morricone, Yanni, Billy Joel, The Beatles etc etc etc. You're not able to recognize their greatness, because you obviously didn't evolve above your own ego and prejudices and you're showing that with your every post. Even Leonard Bernstein composed little quality pop songs for the musical West Side Story. Once he saw Billy Joel in the audience he told him that he should also compose music for musicals. He was praising the quality, originality and creativity of The Beatles many times.
> 
> Saying for Vangelis that his music is 'weak', that Morricone's music is 'pleasing to the ear' or that Yanni 'sounds like Taylor Swift' actually shows that you're not material to be a good composer. You're filled with nonsensical prejudices that have nothing to do with quality of the music.
> It's the same as saying that Beethoven's best symphonies are ok, but somehow boring.
> I've heard many classical music... there are thousands of brilliant pieces from Mozart, Beethoven, Dvorak, Grieg, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Wagner... but once again... to say that their music is way better than Vangelis or Morricone is like saying that one novel is better than other one because it has more pages. It's nonsense. Nothing more or less. It's not valid argument. It's prejudice of self-delusion based on the idea of own superiorior taste.


One word- Mahler. Another word- Bach. Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Debussy, Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Elgar, Brahms, etc. They were all very very capable of making music that you can experience, feel, and connect with. Complexity doesn't always turn out good, but Mahler, Stravinsky, and others prove that when used correctly, the effect can be breathtaking. I actually can't name one mainstream classical composer that I can't connect with in some way, and feel emotion in their music.


----------



## Tchaikov6

And another thing, nikola- if you hate classical music so much, what on earth are you doing on TC? Why did you join? Just to tell us that we're all elitists and snobbish and "too good for the others?" I'm fully aware that many people think of classical music lovers this way. You don't need to tell me it again.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> How??? If I don't like a chord, and it doesn't sound right to my ears, do I just have to tell you it's good instead?


You just shouldn't parade your thoughts as objective fact.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> You just shouldn't parade your thoughts as objective fact.


I never said that my thoughts were objective. I actually made it clear that that is how i felt about the piece, not a fact.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> My dad was opera and classical music lover. I certainly know more about classical music than you know about Vangelis, Yanni or Morricone.
> To say that Morricone music is straight-forward means only you know nothing about his music. Just simple fact. He composed music for over 600 movies and TV series. He changed film music on many levels. He used experimental sounds and he was first one to give every character in the movie a theme. He was composing atonal, classical, orchestral, jazz, lounge, western and many different styles for movies. Before that he changed the way pop songs are arranged.
> Even if he is a straightforward many times, he is still better melody maker than 99% of classical composers. You don't trust me? Ask Quentin Tarantino
> 
> Everything you say about Vangelis, Yanni and Morricone is nothing more than prejudice based on an idea that classical music is superior because it relies on being more complex.
> To you, classical music is by default better. It simply isn't. It's your subjective belief. That's not how QUALITY works.
> Quality is not determined by complexity, but by talent and creativity.
> 
> You're talking about classical music like I know nothing about it. Trust me, the more I listen to it, the less I like it. To enter that world of technical gymnastics really leaves me mostly empty and exhausted. To pretend that someone like thousands and thousands of those pieces and to claim that they are great only because they are 'complex' serves only to them to feed their illusion of superiority.
> It actually makes them look pretty small.
> 
> Classical music in all its beauty and complexity actually opened a door for every mediocrity to exercise with tones. Same with free jazz, metal and everything else that has thousands of 'artists'.
> But Vangelis is only one and actually millions of people around the world love his music because they can feel it. He is pretty much unique at composing brilliant little themes and then build it into something out of this world.
> While listening to majority of classical music there is nothing to feel, nothing to experience. The more tones you throw in there, the more awful it sounds.
> If you want to compose something that is really meaningful and complex, you actually should be really talented and most of the people who are trying to compose 'complex music' are actually not able to do that. They can follow all possible rules and their music will still sound like they're trying to rape the brain of the listener.
> 
> Even your 3 pieces... I was listening to those, but I didn't comment. You're pretty much lost in the idea to make something complex, unusual, atonal and still good. Unfortunatelly, your pieces are even atonal on levels where they shouldn't be. Either you really don't care or you believe that throwing 'unexpected and challenging to listen to' motifs will make them brilliant. I see that some consider your studies to be 'brilliant'. Well, sorry, but to my ears there is nothing brilliant there. There are some parts that could probably promise, but you don't develop them and you deconstructed 2nd piece (in a bad way) simply because you have that mindset that everything must be unexpected and complex to be good. Unfortunatelly, I must tell you that you're not creatively free and with this mindset you'll never be.
> Even if you perfect that style, you should put much effort into creating something meaningful, original and the most important - GOOD TO LISTEN TO no matter how atonal, tonal, simple or complex it may be. I know that this are only your first 3 pieces, so it's not wise to judge, but the problem with those pieces is not so much with how they sound. It is much more within your head. You must find your own voice and not to try to put universal amount of tonal and atonal complexity into 40 seconds.
> Maybe Ligeti and something like this could be some kind of inspiration for you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And remember, every truly great artist can always recognize greatness even in the smallest pop song or modern instrumental piece if needed - ABBA, Elton John, Vangelis, Morricone, Yanni, Billy Joel, The Beatles etc etc etc. You're not able to recognize their greatness, because you obviously didn't evolve above your own ego and prejudices and you're showing that with your every post. Even Leonard Bernstein composed little quality pop songs for the musical West Side Story. Once he saw Billy Joel in the audience he told him that he should also compose music for musicals. He was praising the quality, originality and creativity of The Beatles many times.
> 
> Saying for Vangelis that his music is 'weak', that Morricone's music is 'pleasing to the ear' or that Yanni 'sounds like Taylor Swift' actually shows that you're not material to be a good composer. You're filled with nonsensical prejudices that have nothing to do with quality of the music.
> It's the same as saying that Beethoven's best symphonies are ok, but somehow boring.
> I've heard many classical music... there are thousands of brilliant pieces from Mozart, Beethoven, Dvorak, Grieg, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Wagner... but once again... to say that their music is way better than Vangelis or Morricone is like saying that one novel is better than other one because it has more pages. It's nonsense. Nothing more or less. It's not valid argument. It's prejudice of self-delusion based on the idea of own superiorior taste.


I have a lot of Morricone's soundtracks, so I am quite aware of his capabilities, my bro was a Yanni fan, and I got to know a lot of his stuff. i wouldn't ask Tarantino about his opinion on Morricone being better than 99% of classical, because I don't think he would be in the best position to know. As before, I don't believe Classical is better than other genres. On my own music, I don't follow traditional Classical practice so much actually, but they definitely aren't atonal. My second piece isn't even Classical as much as pop. But I am open to comments as to how I feel how valid they are, and I get a sense you are not a fan of modern music.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil, I've come back around on other genres finally after months of classical only. It feels like I'm discovering music for the first time again! 

This time I KNOW what I love and am not ashamed of it, and I'll proudly discuss what I enjoy about a piece or what I don't enjoy about another piece but I'll do it with tact and respect, that is the key!


----------



## Captainnumber36

If I could say anything to you Phil, it would be to work on writing longer pieces. Not that you are attempting to do anything more than have a little fun, but if you were to take it more seriously, that is something I would suggest.

You definitely have ideas in your head!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> If I could say anything to you Phil, it would be to work on writing longer pieces. Not that you are attempting to do anything more than have a little fun, but if you were to take it more seriously, that is something I would suggest.
> 
> You definitely have ideas in your head!


I've rediscovered Bartok. He was a big influence on me, as my piano teacher forced me to play his pieces. He has pieces under a minute as well. That is one rule in music I'm not afraid to break, the "how long a piece should be" rule.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> Phil, I've come back around on other genres finally after months of classical only. It feels like I'm discovering music for the first time again!
> 
> This time I KNOW what I love and am not ashamed of it, and I'll proudly discuss what I enjoy about a piece or what I don't enjoy about another piece but I'll do it with tact and respect, that is the key!


i just noticed your post in the non-classical subforum yesterday, since I didn't visit there a while. Yes, there's only good things that can come from going back to other genres. just like there is nothing to lose from dabbling into some music theory.  You don't need to take a formal course to learn.

there are actually little tutoirals on how to harmonize a melody on the internet.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> i just noticed your post in the non-classical subforum yesterday, since I didn't visit there a while. Yes, there's only good things that can come from going back to other genres. just like there is nothing to lose from dabbling into some music theory.  You don't need to take a formal course to learn.
> 
> there are actually little tutoirals on how to harmonize a melody on the internet.


I think I have a very strong intuitive sense of theory. I can't verbalize what I'm doing, but I can hear it and feel it quite strongly. My fingers just know what to do while "jamming" with other musicians.

It's just because I've been playing for so long, my fingers just know what to do, and I like playing that way, that is my method.

I'm not much more sitting down and learning massive amounts of theory, that's just not my approach.

:tiphat:


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think I have a very strong intuitive sense of theory. I can't verbalize what I'm doing, but I can hear it and feel it quite strongly. My fingers just know what to do while "jamming" with other musicians.
> 
> It's just because I've been playing for so long, my fingers just know what to do, and I like playing that way, that is my method.
> 
> I'm not much more sitting down and learning massive amounts of theory, that's just not my approach.
> 
> :tiphat:


Yes. I do think there is some you know intuitively. I don't think anyone needs to learn a lot of theory either to compose, as a lot just isn't applicable. But just enough to be able to get it on paper and iron out a few wrinkles. The problem with jamming is there could too few good ideas stretched out for too long, which happens in a lot of rock and jazz music. Nobody can tell you it is the right thing to do, but I believe it can help.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Yes. I do think there is some you know intuitively. I don't think anyone needs to learn a lot of theory either to compose, as a lot just isn't applicable. But just enough to be able to get it on paper and iron out a few wrinkles. The problem with jamming is there could too few good ideas stretched out for too long, which happens in a lot of rock and jazz music. Nobody can tell you it is the right thing to do, but I believe it can help.


I believe you can iron your music out by recording and listening back on it as well, that's worked well for me.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I've re-written certain ideas so many times, I want to throw those ideas out. I've been in several different bands, and I always try to reinvent ideas I used in past bands in the new band.

Gosh, I stress myself out with music.

It is my greatest gift and greatest enemy, no doubt!

Not sure if anyone can relate to that or not.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> Nikola was the one being rude and insulting, so don't put this on me. Off was probably the wrong word for my description, but I'm perfectly allowed to do that. That is what Today's Composers section is about- posting music and expecting comments- either good or bad. Both sides of the argument have major holes, and reading back on the posts much of the stuff me and Nicola said was pretty ridiculous. Now we're just talking in circles. It's time to just end this discussion.


Basing your comments on the lack of hearing isn't actually a valid comment. And no, I don't need your comments because I'm perfectly aware why my piece sounds the way it sounds.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> How??? If I don't like a chord, and it doesn't sound right to my ears, do I just have to tell you it's good instead?


Like I said, there's something wrong with your ears, to put it politely.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> And another thing, nikola- if you hate classical music so much, what on earth are you doing on TC? Why did you join? Just to tell us that we're all elitists and snobbish and "too good for the others?" I'm fully aware that many people think of classical music lovers this way. You don't need to tell me it again.


Where did I say that I hate classical music? I actually pretty much appreciate it and that doesn't mean that there are no thousands of boring technical gymnastics. Not only that you can't hear, but you also obviously can't read what I wrote.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> I have a lot of Morricone's soundtracks, so I am quite aware of his capabilities, my bro was a Yanni fan, and I got to know a lot of his stuff. i wouldn't ask Tarantino about his opinion on Morricone being better than 99% of classical, because I don't think he would be in the best position to know. As before, I don't believe Classical is better than other genres. On my own music, I don't follow traditional Classical practice so much actually, but they definitely aren't atonal. My second piece isn't even Classical as much as pop. But I am open to comments as to how I feel how valid they are, and I get a sense you are not a fan of modern music.


So, your music is not atonal, but dissonant!? OK then. 
What you call 'modern' is actually pretty much dated. If modern is what was popular 50 to 100 years ago, oh well then.
But that's not the problem. The problem is that you throw many things together hoping it will work, but it doesn't work. It all sounds like you actually didn't put any effort into it and I actually think that is the problem - you didn't. 
Some things sound way off even for dissonance, especially some weird chords, but just like you said, those sound like studies and not musical pieces and they don't sound interesting, different or new, at least not to my blasphemic ears. Put a little more effort into what you're doing. That's why I posted a piece by Ligeti, so you can hear something that works as a piece. 
Also, try to make something that can actually be felt.. something with spark. Gymnastics on piano isn't actually a music.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> i just noticed your post in the non-classical subforum yesterday, since I didn't visit there a while. Yes, there's only good things that can come from going back to other genres. just like there is nothing to lose from dabbling into some music theory.  You don't need to take a formal course to learn.
> 
> there are actually little tutoirals on how to harmonize a melody on the internet.


That's one thing I didn't want to do - to put my music through some already existing chords and musical templates. How can anyone teach you how to compose a melody!? It's a nonsense.
My music is only mine and it shouldn't sound any different than it already sounds. That's why I didn't want to follow any harmonic/chord templates. That was my approach and I won't change it. 
I guess that's why all those piano music on youtube sound similar because they all use similar chords and style of playing no matter is it new age or something else.

Your approach is different than mine. You want to use musical theory so use it in more meaningful way, because so far, the more complex you are, the more lost and cacophonic those pieces sound. It's like you're trying without much effort or hearing to make something 'intellectually stimulating' and you fail at it. You must go beyond theory and intellectualizing music.
My way of composing is different. I'm relying on my hearing and instincts. There is only one person that must be satisfied with my music - me. When I'm satisfied, other people like it too. I got so many positive critics so far from so many different places and people who even have musical background (and I even didn't need those critics) that all this fakery here is only making me laugh.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> That's one thing I didn't want to do - to put my music through some already existing chords and musical templates. How can anyone teach you how to compose a melody!? It's a nonsense.
> My music is only mine and it shouldn't sound any different than it already sounds. That's why I didn't want to follow any harmonic/chord templates. That was my approach and I won't change it.
> I guess that's why all those piano music on youtube sound similar because they all use similar chords and style of playing no matter is it new age or something else.
> 
> Your approach is different than mine. You want to use musical theory so use it in more meaningful way, because so far, the more complex you are, the more lost and cacophonic those pieces sound. It's like you're trying without much effort or hearing to make something 'intellectually stimulating' and you fail at it. You must go beyond theory and intellectualizing music.
> My way of composing is different. I'm relying on my hearing and instincts. There is only one person that must be satisfied with my music - me. When I'm satisfied, other people like it too. I got so many positive critics so far from so many different places and people who even have musical background (and I even didn't need those critics) that all this fakery here is only making me laugh.


i hear where you're coming from, I agree with some of the stuff you say on approach, except that it doesn't relate to my music. I'm not surprised my music won't work with some people. But I do take some comments with a grain of salt. I've heard some more dissonant music by some great composers even to my ears that I can't make out, that I feel my own is like lollipops in comparison.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Like I said, there's something wrong with your ears, to put it politely.


So you want to hear this then- your piece is absolutely perfect don't change a thing about this. You want that answer? Fine.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Tchaikov6 said:


> So you want to hear this then- your piece is absolutely perfect don't change a thing about this. You want that answer? Fine.


I second that. We are all jealous as he suspects.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> So you want to hear this then- your piece is absolutely perfect don't change a thing about this. You want that answer? Fine.


Thanks. I'm glad you like it


----------



## Czech composer

Interesting video about music theory


----------



## nikola

Damn it.. I would love so much more Vangelis music if he learned music theory. I hate him now for making me love all his wrong chords :lol:


----------



## nikola

Below this video, there is an interesting quote:


> Debussy once said that works of art make rules, rules do not make works of art


----------



## Czech composer

nikola said:


> Damn it.. I would love so much more Vangelis music if he learned music theory. I hate him now for making me love all his wrong chords :lol:


Why do you think Vangelis don´t know music theory? Is there any quote of him about this issue? 
Because I think he pretty knows his stuff and his music is far from randomness. 
I would be realy surprised if Vangelis is one of that musicians which are proud of their lack of knowledge in music theory.


----------



## nikola

Czech composer said:


> Why do you think Vangelis don´t know music theory? Is there any quote of him about this issue?
> Because I think he pretty knows his stuff and his music is far from randomness.
> I would be realy surprised if Vangelis is one of that musicians which are proud of their lack of knowledge in music theory.


Yes, he doesn't have knowledge of musical theory. He doesn't know how to write music. He told that nobody can teach you how to compose and yes, he is proud of it.
Yanni also doesn't know musical theory. Hans Zimmer too. And many others. Danny Elfman is also not that strong on theory from what I found. And still, they created magic. 
I am also surprised that you're surprised. Learn more about musicians you appreciate. Music theory can't teach you how to compose. It's only a tool, not holy scripture. 
I rest my case.


----------



## Czech composer

So I am surprised indeed. Please do you have some links to certain quotes. I know i can google it by myself, but if you know some good fast links I would appreciate it for saving my time


----------



## Czech composer

I found some link where it says, that he can´t read music. But it doesn´t implies that he don´t know music theory. Because his music is very logical. He certainly know which chord progression works for him and which not and This is musical knowledge...


----------



## nikola

Czech composer said:


> So I am surprised indeed. Please do you have some links to certain quotes. I know i can google it by myself, but if you know some good fast links I would appreciate it for saving my time


Most of it you can find on wikipedia in biography. I can't find now all links to videos where they were actually saying that.

But I found this... forward to 5:55


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> That's one thing I didn't want to do - to put my music through some already existing chords and musical templates. How can anyone teach you how to compose a melody!? It's a nonsense.
> My music is only mine and it shouldn't sound any different than it already sounds. That's why I didn't want to follow any harmonic/chord templates. That was my approach and I won't change it.
> I guess that's why all those piano music on youtube sound similar because they all use similar chords and style of playing no matter is it new age or something else.
> 
> .


You are missing the point here. Your chord selection may sound original to you because you don't know they are in fact quite common, in order for them to be consonant chords. It is not by miracle or great talent that someone finds chords that sound nice. A chord selection not based on this method results in dissonance, which you are against. You can't have it both ways here. With someone ignoring music theory, their work will always appear original, one-of-a-kind and perfect.


----------



## Vasks

nikola said:


> Debussy once said that works of art make rules, rules do not make works of art


Yes, Debussy was quite a revolutionary. He was a true individualist and a true artistic Frenchman. He also studied at the Paris Conservatory from age 11 through 22...in other words, he knew his stuff, unlike others here pushing the idea that knowledge stiffles creativity.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> You are missing the point here. Your chord selection may sound original to you because you don't know they are in fact quite common, in order for them to be consonant chords. It is not by miracle or great talent that someone finds chords that sound nice. A chord selection not based on this method results in dissonance, which you are against. You can't have it both ways here. With someone ignoring music theory, their work will always appear original, one-of-a-kind and perfect.


I don't think that my chords are original. I don't think anything. I know they work together on the level I wanted to achieve. Like I already said - ORIGINALITY to you and me is not the same thing. You look everything from technical point of view. Technicality is not music. Music is something else. 
I am not against dissonance. I actually like some dissonant work. Once again, I sent you Ligeti... I wouldn't say the piece is completely without dissonance. Would you? I like that piece. 
I also think that not all of my work is completely without dissonance. 
I only said that you could do better your dissonant pieces... put little more effort and create something that is truly your own. Don't do 'studies'... make music. Just my little advice. You don't need to follow it. That's your music... not mine.


----------



## nikola

Vasks said:


> Yes, Debussy was quite a revolutionary. He was a true individualist and a true artistic Frenchman. He also studied at the Paris Conservatory from age 11 through 22...in other words, he knew his stuff, unlike others here pushing the idea that knowledge stiffles creativity.


I was thinking that you will come here much sooner with sword in your right hand and holy theory scriptures in your left hand. I'm disappointed. You're not real fighter. Go home.


----------



## Vasks

I don't want to fight. I merely want to point out that your talking points are pure crap


----------



## nikola

Vasks said:


> I don't want to fight. I merely want to point out that your talking points are pure crap


Yes, my valid arguments are crap. Your lack of any isn't :lol:


----------



## Vasks

nikola said:


> Yes, my valid arguments are crap.


Good to know that you agree


----------



## nikola

Vasks said:


> Good to know that you agree


Always with you, dear sir :tiphat:


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Where did I say that I hate classical music? I actually pretty much appreciate it and that doesn't mean that there are no thousands of boring technical gymnastics. Not only that you can't hear, but you also obviously can't read what I wrote.


You said- "the more I listen to it the less I like it..." So even if you don't hate classical music yet, you're liking it less and less- you're insulting much of it for being complex for the sake of complex and saying " To enter that world of technical gymnastics really leaves me mostly empty and exhausted." I guess you're right that you didn't go out and say that you hated it. But you pretty much implied that you did, do, or will. And, perhaps you are the one too ignorant to open up your eyes and ears to what other people think about your pieces and your argument.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Like I said, there's something wrong with your ears, to put it politely.


You can't just say- with no knowledge of music theory or notation- that there is something wrong with my ears.

Oh, never mind- Yes, there must be something wrong my ears, because your music is perfect and every chord is pristine and nothing should ever be changed. You shouldn't need to take criticism like everybody else does on Today's Composers because your music is already the best ever composed. There must be something wrong with my ears, because I don't like it.

Sigh.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> You said- "the more I listen to it the less I like it..." So even if you don't hate classical music yet, you're liking it less and less- you're insulting much of it for being complex for the sake of complex and saying " To enter that world of technical gymnastics really leaves me mostly empty and exhausted." I guess you're right that you didn't go out and say that you hated it. But you pretty much implied that you did, do, or will. And, perhaps you are the one too ignorant to open up your eyes and ears to what other people think about your pieces and your argument.


Read again the end of post #182.

Other people? You mean you and paulc who must look at the theory rules to know that my chords 'don't work'? Yeah... sure. I didn't post my piece for advice. I post it here, so I can actually hear from paulc all that nonsense that proved me how fake you all are. 
Even if I would cut my ears off, I would still have better hearing for music than both of you together.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> You can't just say- with no knowledge of music theory or notation- that there is something wrong with my ears.
> 
> Oh, never mind- Yes, there must be something wrong my ears, because your music is perfect and every chord is pristine and nothing should ever be changed. You shouldn't need to take criticism like everybody else does on Today's Composers because your music is already the best ever composed. There must be something wrong with my ears, because I don't like it.
> 
> Sigh.


Like I said, there's something wrong with your ears, to put it politely.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Read again the end of post #182.
> 
> Other people? You mean you and paulc who must look at the theory rules to know that my chords 'don't work'? Yeah... sure. I didn't post my piece for advice. I post it here, so I can actually hear from paulc all that nonsense that proved me how fake you all are.
> Even if I would cut my ears off, I would still have better hearing for music than both of you together.


Sorry if you didn't post the piece for advice- you're going to get advice on this forum, whether you want or not. And you should be happy for the advice. What did you post the piece for then- so people can praise it? And if we're fake, I don't even know what that makes you- if you look up those theoretical terms that paulc mentioned, you will find all of them to be accurate. Maybe you were taught as a kid that facts are fake- it sure seems like it.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Like I said, there's something wrong with your ears, to put it politely.


I'll just ignore that.


----------



## Tchaikov6

I read the end of Post 182. And I complete disagree. Did anyone ever say that the music of the composers you listed is better than Vangelis, Yanni, and others because it's more complex? Nope, or at least I didn't. I just prefer it because it interests me more and I would rather listen to it. It's as simple as that.

Of course you'll probably go on your usual rant about me being tone deaf and not having ears, or being deaf. Whatever. I've learned to take every word you say with a grain of salt.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> Sorry if you didn't post the piece for advice- you're going to get advice on this forum, whether you want or not. And you should be happy for the advice. What did you post the piece for then- so people can praise it? And if we're fake, I don't even know what that makes you- if you look up those theoretical terms that paulc mentioned, you will find all of them to be accurate. Maybe you were taught as a kid that facts are fake- it sure seems like it.


Grow up or continue to repeat yourself.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Grow up or continue to repeat yourself.


Sure, continue to insult me, but I hope you know I'm right that those FACTS are not fake.


----------



## Czech composer

nikola said:


> Most of it you can find on wikipedia in biography. I can't find now all links to videos where they were actually saying that.
> 
> But I found this... forward to 5:55


Thanks for link.
Now I can see where he is going from. He is right on many points, but at the end of a day I rather disagree.
For example when he say,that his teacher is a nature what does it mean? Everyone is lectured by nature. 
It is called "personal experience"

Funny think is, that even piece by someone who doesn´t know music theory can be analysed. And if you 
analyze work of Vangelis you´ll find not only a system in it, but you´ll find remarcable formal and harmonic similarities
to other composers.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Grow up or continue to repeat yourself.


And talk about being a hypocrite.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> And talk about being a hypocrite.


Wil you quote for the 3rd time my post?


----------



## nikola

Czech composer said:


> Thanks for link.
> Now I can see where he is going from. He is right on many points, but at the end of a day I rather disagree.
> For example when he say,that his teacher is a nature what does it mean? Everyone is lectured by nature.
> It is called "personal experience"
> 
> Funny think is, that even piece by someone who doesn´t know music theory can be analysed. And if you
> analyze work of Vangelis you´ll find not only a system in it, but you´ll find remarcable formal and harmonic similarities
> to other composers.


Of course. He knows by instinct and hearing what works and what doesn't work. He doesn't need rules to compose what he wants to compose.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Wil you quote for the 3rd time my post?


You still haven't made any move to argue against my point- so I take it I'm correct and both of us know it. And yes, to answer your question.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> You still haven't made any move to argue against my point- so I take it I'm correct and both of us know it. And yes, to answer your question.


You know, I believe that you are nice person (unlike me), but conversation with you is like talking with 5 year old kid. You are constantly repetaing yourself and even if I already gave you the great amount of arguments considering 'theoretical rules' and I gave them here over and over again, you are still repeating the same nonsense over and over again. If I told for 100 times that there are many brilliant composers who proved that they can compose complex, beautiful soulful and original music without any musical education that is unbeatable argument on its own. 
And I won't repeat that anymore. I also won't repeat anything considering my music at all.
So, please continue to be a little whiny baby who can't handle the truth. If you quote 100 times my posts stating the same nonsense over and over again, you'll probably convince yourself once that you won in this conversation even though you lost at the beginning when you didn't even know or wanted to admit that many great musicians don't have musical education. I rest my case.


----------



## Czech composer

nikola said:


> Of course. He knows by instinct and hearing what works and what doesn't work. He doesn't need rules to compose what he wants to compose.


Maybe now I can see more brightly what you are saying. Correct me if I am wrong, but you think, that good instinct is only thing you need to be a good composer. Is that right?

If it is the case I can partly agree. Instict is for me definately the most important ability which composer must have. 
But it Isn´t only ability which composer must have. 
And next funny thing I found on me for myself, that instinct can be much improved just by learning music theory


----------



## nikola

Czech composer said:


> Maybe now I can see more brightly what you are saying. Correct me if I am wrong, but you think, that good instinct is only thing you need to be a good composer. Is that right?
> 
> If it is the case I can partly agree. Instict is for me definately the most important ability which composer must have.
> But it Isn´t only ability which composer must have.
> And next funny thing I found on me for myself, that instinct can be much improved just by learning music theory


Instinct, talent, hearing, sensibility for music... those are things you can't learn. Musical theory is tool and there's nothing wrong with those educational tools. They are helpful, but they won't turn someone without talent into a great composer. Musical theory can teach you to follow rules. It can teach you to compose something within already known melodic/harmonic patterns. It can't teach you anything else. You must have it within yourself to actually be a composer.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> You know, I believe that you are nice person (unlike me), but conversation with you is like talking with 5 year old kid. You are constantly repetaing yourself and even if I already gave you the great amount of arguments considering 'theoretical rules' and I gave them here over and over again, you are still repeating the same nonsense over and over again. If I told for 100 times that there are many brilliant composers who proved that they can compose complex, beautiful soulful and original music without any musical education that is unbeatable argument on its own.
> And I won't repeat that anymore. I also won't repeat anything considering my music at all.
> So, please continue to be a little whiny baby who can't handle the truth. If you quote 100 times my posts stating the same nonsense over and over again, you'll probably convince yourself once that you won in this conversation even though you lost at the beginning when you didn't even know or wanted to admit that many great musicians don't have musical education. I rest my case.


You're also repeating yourself constantly- I'm not bothering to count how many times you've mentioned how tone deaf I am and how my earing is wrong. I'm just pushing my point which you don't seem to understand. Nonsense in your eyes might be different in my eyes. Nonsense in my eyes might be different in yours. Perhaps we're both babbling nonsense to each other.

Yes, maybe there are many brilliant composers- you haven't mentioned any yet that really have gotten completely fine without music theory at all. If anything, you are the whiny baby who can't handle the truth about what me and others think of your music, and that of Vangelis and Yanni as well.

You haven't given any true good arguments, only a couple composers who it turns out actually did know their music theory. And maybe there are a couple that haven't needed music theory- but think of the thousands of others who have been helped and are know famous around the world and throughout history because they looked at the rules, studied them, knew them- and then did amazing things with them.

My point was always- If you want to compose something that will be truly cherished and remembered throughout history, praised, something great that will be memorable for all listeners- study your music theory and you will come closer to achieving that than those who don't. My point even more concisely made- Music theory will help you. Can you understand those 5 words? I'm only 9 years away from being 5- therefore kind of a little kid- but honestly, with you I feel like you are a 3-year old telling me that I'm acting like a 5-year old. So thank you for that complement. You are the 3-year old, and I am 5. We're both spurting absolute nonsense at this point. I'm sure normal 3-year olds and 5-year olds could handle this conversation better than we can.


----------



## nikola

keep talking...


----------



## Captainnumber36

Why do all my threads in this sub-forum always turn into exhaustive debates, :lol:!

Tchaikov6,

I have learned that this sub-forum is not the right place to share my music. This audience, for the great majority, enjoys analyzing and comparing from a classical viewpoint instead of meeting my music where it's at; new age (mostly). I really should have ignored posts I didn't fully believe in, but some like DZC were very rude and obnoxious and hurtful with their thoughts. While they have the right to speak like that, I find it to be musical discrimination.

I believe feedback should be with tact and respect, which DZC, for example, did not start off doing. He was quite rude and obnoxious, parading his theoretical standard of analysis as objective fact. He continued to condemn me in future posts of my music, just because he had the right to, which was rather hurtful.

Truth be told, people look for different things in art, and those who are unable to meet a piece where it's at and observe it's purpose instead of having a finite set of rules for judgement at parading it around as fact are those opinions I regard with a grain of salt.

I would've been able to look past a lot of the narrow perspectives in evaluation of my music from many members on this sub-forum if it hadn't been for the crude and obnoxious/hurtful comments made by DZC and some others.

Most people that color an observation as fact actually mean it as an opinion and I get that, definitely.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Instinct, talent, hearing, sensibility for music... those are things you can't learn. Musical theory is tool and there's nothing wrong with those educational tools. They are helpful, but they won't turn someone without talent into a great composer. Musical theory can teach you to follow rules. It can teach you to compose something within already known melodic/harmonic patterns. It can't teach you anything else. You must have it within yourself to actually be a composer.


You can learn sensibility for music. You can hate Shostakovich, and then through other composers be more sensitive of the brilliance of his pieces. That is only one example. Musical theory can teach you to follow the rules, but also bend them to your will- break them, smash them, bend them, twist them, tie them into a knot :lol:. Those last two statements just aren't true. Gershwin started getting interest in music at age 10 and started learning rapidly from there. Vaughan Williams, a great composer- his aunt thought he was a hopeless case. You can't just say- this piece sucks, I must not have it in me to be a good composer.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> Why do all my threads in this sub-forum always turn into exhaustive debates, :lol:!
> 
> Tchaikov6,
> 
> I have learned that this sub-forum is not the right place to share my music. This audience, for the great majority, enjoys analyzing and comparing from a classical viewpoint instead of meeting my music where it's at; new age (mostly). I really should have ignored posts I didn't fully believe in, but some like DZC were very rude and obnoxious and hurtful with their thoughts. While they have the right to speak like that, I find it to be musical discrimination.
> 
> I believe feedback should be with tact and respect, which DZC, for example, did not start off doing. He was quite rude and obnoxious, parading his theoretical standard of analysis as objective fact. He continued to condemn me in future posts of my music, just because he had the right to, which was rather hurtful.
> 
> Truth be told, people look for different things in art, and those who are unable to meet a piece where it's at and observe it's purpose instead of having a finite set of rules for judgement at parading it around as fact are those opinions I regard with a grain of salt.
> 
> I would've been able to look past a lot of the narrow perspectives in evaluation of my music from many members on this sub-forum if it hadn't been for the crude and obnoxious/hurtful comments made by DZC and some others.
> 
> Most people that color an observation as fact actually mean it as an opinion and I get that, definitely.


DZC was only doing it to help you- he stated specific examples of where you could improve your music. He could have said it less harsh, and he probably should have, but he was just trying to help you with your music.

When you say that we should observe a piece's purpose, I'm confused. What is the purpose of these pieces? Nikola never told me the purpose of his/her piece. Your music isn't terrible, but it's not perfect either. You should accept that like when DZC gave me harsh criticism of my music. I'm currently working on my Violin Sonata right now. Maybe if people accepted criticisms, and actually made an effort to improve their music and weren't so proud and unable to change, none of this would be happening. Go to some of the posts paulc made at the very beginning about nikola's music. You will find these are factual statements about the music, chords, and otherwise.


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> keep talking...


Okay, knowing that I am correct! :lol::lol:


----------



## Czech composer

nikola said:


> Musical theory is tool and there's nothing wrong with those educational tools. They are helpful, but they won't turn someone without talent into a great composer..


Thats 100% true, but on the other hand there is big danger that if you don´t know the rules you can end up with a piece you think is absolutely on your own, but then you figure out that it follow exactly the same clishe rules you skipped in classroom.

I can understand because i had similar opinion years ago and it was before I started studies at conservatory. I was affraid, that when I learn the rules I will be somehow by my subconsciousnesly forced to follow that rules and that my music will lost originality. 
But it didn´t happened. I was teached how to write sonata form, theme and variation form, fugue only for my later realization that i don´t want write any of these. But I am glad that I am familiar with it. I know more about music in general.


----------



## nikola

Tchaikov6 said:


> Okay, knowing that I am correct! :lol::lol:


There's nothing more important in this world than you being correct.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> DZC was only doing it to help you- he stated specific examples of where you could improve your music. He could have said it less harsh, and he probably should have, but he was just trying to help you with your music.
> 
> When you say that we should observe a piece's purpose, I'm confused. What is the purpose of these pieces? Nikola never told me the purpose of his/her piece. Your music isn't terrible, but it's not perfect either. You should accept that like when DZC gave me harsh criticism of my music. I'm currently working on my Violin Sonata right now. Maybe if people accepted criticisms. Go to some of the posts paulc made at the very beginning about nikola's music. You will find these are factual statements about the music, chords, and otherwise.


I can't judge objectively the motivations of DZC, but the first interaction I had with him was when I posted my take on a piece by Bach where he said, "you made Bach sound like a top 10 sad piano songs on youtube" which was a rude and obnoxious way to parade his view on my take on Bach, as if he were objectively correct.

There were some on the forum that really enjoyed how I interpreted Bach and changed it around as well.

When you say statements of facts, perhaps from a theoretical analysis you are making correct statements, but how about judging it from an emotional viewpoint in how it makes you feel?

Anyways, I take the advice I find helpful and use it (such as Bettinas) and that's how it should be. I'm not against advice, but I am against stating opinions as facts, and being rude and disrespectful. That is inevitably going to happen though, but I should have been the bigger man and let it go.

I think the majority of those who follow this sub-forum do not like my music, which makes me feel I should stop posting it.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Czech composer said:


> Thats 100% true, but on the other hand there is big danger that if you don´t know the rules you can end up with a piece you think is absolutely on your own, but then you figure out that it follow exactly the same clishe rules you skipped in classroom.
> 
> I can understand because i was had similar opinion years ago and it was before I started studies at conservatory. I was affraid, that when I learn the rules I will be somehow by my subconsciousnesly forced to follow that rules and that my music will lost originality.
> But it didn´t happened. I was teached how to write sonata form, theme and variation form, fugue only for my later realization
> that i don´t wan´t write any of these. But I am glad that I am familiar with it. I know more about music in general.


My goal isn't to do anything besides create art that pleases me. If it's not original by theoretical standards, then be it, I wouldn't mind knowing about that from those who know more about theory.

The only person I aim to please is myself, however, and if others like it, then good, if not, oh well.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> I can't judge objectively the motivations of DZC, but the first interaction I had with him was when I posted my take on a piece by Bach where he said, "you made Bach sound like a top 10 sad piano songs on youtube" which was a rude and obnoxious way to parade his view on my take on Bach, as if he were objectively correct.
> 
> There were some on the forum that really enjoyed how I interpreted Bach and changed it around as well.
> 
> When you say statements of facts, perhaps from a theoretical analysis you are making correct statements, but how about judging it from an emotional viewpoint in how it makes you feel?
> 
> Anyways, I take the advice I find helpful and use it (such as Bettinas) and that's how it should be. I'm not against advice, but I am against stating opinions as facts, and being rude and disrespectful. That is inevitably going to happen though, but I should have been the bigger man and let it go.
> 
> I think the majority of those who follow this sub-forum do not like my music, which makes me feel I should stop posting it.


Okay, I didn't know about that, and I'll say that was rude. If he had given you helpful tips about your playing, it would have been fine- but he didn't, and I'll admit he shouldn't have said that. I listened to the Bach piece, and although I prefer the original playing of it, it was nicely done. From an emotional viewpoint, nikola's music made me feel pretty much empty, lost, and disorganized, to be frank.

I will give a shout-out to Bettina and agree with you that she is probably the best at giving advice here at TC. She'll say something genuinely nice about the music, and then give some tips and helpers in a polite way. If you are against stating opinions as facts, than I think you should be mad at both me and nikola right now, and pretty much everyone else on this thread including you.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> Your music isn't terrible, but it's not perfect either.


Is that a fact or an opinion?


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> My goal isn't to do anything besides create art that pleases me. If it's not original by theoretical standards, then be it, I wouldn't mind knowing about that from those who know more about theory.
> 
> The only person I aim to please is myself, however, and if others like it, then good, if not, oh well.


Very well, and that's perfectly fine. People are just trying to help you out with your music, don't push them away. Maybe you would please yourself more when composing if you studied music theory, therefore wrote better music, therefore was more pleased with the music you wrote, and everybody else would be as well.

Of course, you don't have to, it would just be something that would help you tremendously.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> Is that a fact or an opinion?


Both. In my opinion, your music isn't terrible, but to some people it might be. But I know for a sure that it's a fact that your music is not perfect. There are improvements that could be made. In fact, there is no such thing as a perfect piece of music- well, I guess that is just my opinion.

This is getting more confusing, but I know that your music is not perfect for a fact. Perfect being- 
having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> Very well, and that's perfectly fine. People are just trying to help you out with your music, don't push them away. Maybe you would please yourself more when composing if you studied music theory, therefore wrote better music, therefore was more pleased with the music you wrote, and everybody else would be as well.
> 
> Of course, you don't have to, it would just be something that would help you tremendously.


Lots of opinions in there. You think knowing music theory will definitely help, where I disagree.

Though, I don't mind hearing analysis on my music from a theoretical standpoint either!

Do me a favor, express your view on my nocturne in the op of this thread from an emotional and theoretical standpoint.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> Both. In my opinion, your music isn't terrible, but to some people it might be. But I know for a sure that it's a fact that your music is not perfect. There are improvements that could be made. In fact, there is no such thing as a perfect piece of music- well, I guess that is just my opinion.
> 
> This is getting more confusing, but I know that your music is not perfect for a fact. Perfect being-
> having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.


There is no such thing as perfection in music. There are only opinions on it and various methods of analysis to comprehend it. The number one method I use for analysis of personal taste is mainly emotional and how it makes me feel. I tend to like things that feel very interesting and creative like the impressionists, tom waits, Phish, Leonard Cohen, The Flaming Lips, and etc.


----------



## nikola

Beethoven's music is also terrible to some people.


----------



## Czech composer

Captainnumber36 said:


> My goal isn't to do anything besides create art that pleases me. If it's not original by theoretical standards, then be it, I wouldn't mind knowing about that from those who know more about theory.
> 
> The only person I aim to please is myself, however, and if others like it, then good, if not, oh well.


Great! Thats exactly my goal too! And I even think it should be goal for every single composer.
But everyone has his own path... I try to respect everyone´s view, but from my own experience
I strongly recommend study of theory.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> Lots of opinions in there. You think knowing music theory will definitely help, where I disagree.
> 
> Though, I don't mind hearing analysis on my music from a theoretical standpoint either!
> 
> Do me a favor, express your view on my nocturne in the op of this thread from an emotional and theoretical standpoint.


It can't hurt! Music theory cannot get in the way. That is a fact. You can just choose not to use it.

I will do as you say with the Nocturne, just give 15 minutes or so.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Czech composer said:


> Great! Thats exactly my goal too! And I even think it should be goal for every single composer.
> But everyone has his own path... I try to respect everyone´s view, but from my own experience
> I strongly recommend study of theory.


This is a classical message board after-all, so I would think most here would be in favor of studying music theory.

I think my aspirations to not pursue study of musical theory showcase my inner rock star. Several rock stars create from emotion rather than theory I feel (there are certainly exceptions, though).


----------



## Tchaikov6

nikola said:


> Beethoven's music is also terrible to some people.


Yeah, that's why I said that saying that music is or isn't terrible is just an opinion.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> There is no such thing as perfection in music. There are only opinions on it and various methods of analysis to comprehend it. The number one method I use for analysis of personal taste is mainly emotional and how it makes me feel. I tend to like things that feel very interesting and creative like the impressionists, tom waits, Phish, Leonard Cohen, The Flaming Lips, and etc.


If there's no such thing as perfection, then my statement that it isn't perfect is a fact.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> It can't hurt! Music theory cannot get in the way. That is a fact. You can just choose not to use it.
> 
> I will do as you say with the Nocturne, just give 15 minutes or so.


I think for some people, if they spend their whole lives studying the rules, it becomes embedded in their sub-conscious. A person that spends their time attempting to express themselves develop an intuition about music.

I'm not really placing one over the other, and I think there can be a happy medium, no doubt.

I'm not completely without theoretical knowledge either, but it is very basic, admittedly. I can read music, too.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> This is a classical message board after-all, so I would think most here would be in favor of studying music theory.
> 
> I think my aspirations to not pursue study of musical theory showcase my inner rock star. Several rock stars create from emotion rather than theory I feel (there are certainly exceptions, though).


I pose you a question- your avatar actually served as inspiration.

What did Mahler create his music from? Was it emotion or theory? He had a great understanding of both.

You can create music from both, but that emotion could probably get expressed better with a better understanding of theory.

MY OPINION.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think for some people, if they spend their whole lives studying the rules, it becomes embedded in their sub-conscious. A person that spends their time attempting to express themselves develop an intuition about music.
> 
> I'm not really placing one over the other, and I think there can be a happy medium, no doubt.
> 
> I'm not completely without theoretical knowledge either, but it is very basic, admittedly. I can read music, too.


You can do both- spending your time expressing yourself and studying the rules. You have a life ahead of you- why not use the time to do both.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> If there's no such thing as perfection, then my statement that it isn't perfect is a fact.


Let me take that back.

You can outline a set of criteria by which to analyze a piece by and judge it's merits on that. However, there is not one perfect set of criteria that is above another. But a piece can perfectly meet the standards of a set criteria and be perfect.

It is more interesting in de-coding what a person's evaluation criteria is when judging the merits of a piece.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> I pose you a question- your avatar actually served as inspiration.
> 
> What did Mahler create his music from? Was it emotion or theory? He had a great understanding of both.
> 
> You can create music from both, but that emotion could probably get expressed better with a better understanding of theory.
> 
> MY OPINION.


The fundamentals of music are inevitably a part of music. I don't think you completely compose without a sense of theory or emotion.

Where a piece lays in being more inspired by theory or emotion is on a continuum and what you decide to listen to is a subjective evaluation.

Nothing is without theory, nothing is without emotion, and nothing is without borrowed ideas. How much a piece is based on inspiration, emotion, and innovative ideas lays on a continuum.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> Certainly embracing Chopin's take on this compositional form, I have taken his overall mood and added my own stylings into the piece such as syncopation normally found in funk and typically absent in Classical music.
> 
> Hope you enjoy, I look forward to hearing your comments!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :tiphat:


I'm terrible at analyzing music from a theoretical standpoint without music, but that's okay, I will attempt to.

Your piece begins with a simple melody, pretty much a scale. The left hand is a doing a repeated pattern. The I chord then shifts to a B-flat Major chord that doesn't really sound like it should resolve into anything except an E-flat Major Chord. But it does, and then moves back to the original melody, but then ends abruptly.

A second melody then appears, turns to major. The first beat note at 1:12 does not sound right, it just randomly appears. The rhythms all seem the same throughout the piece, as do the notes- you don't really ever get adventurous with them. Many of the notes are abrupt.

Emotional standpoint- this was easier- it's just trance music, boring and repetitive. I'm sorry, I can't put it otherwise. I couldn't even describe it as relaxing. Of course I wasn't covering my ears and shouting, but I felt nothing inside of me emotionally moved.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> Let me take that back.
> 
> You can outline a set of criteria by which to analyze a piece by and judge it's merits on that. However, there is not one perfect set of criteria that is above another. But a piece can perfectly meet the standards of a set criteria and be perfect.
> 
> It is more interesting in de-coding what a person's evaluation criteria is when judging the merits of a piece.


That is an opinion...


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> The fundamentals of music are inevitably a part of music. I don't think you completely compose without a sense of theory or emotion.
> 
> Where a piece lays in being more inspired by theory or emotion is on a continuum and what you decide to listen to is a subjective evaluation.
> 
> Nothing is without theory, nothing is without emotion, and nothing is without borrowed ideas. How much a piece is based on inspiration, emotion, and innovative ideas lays on a continuum.


It will be inspired by emotion, unless it is not intended to.

Also, your statement is an opinion.


----------



## Czech composer

Captainnumber36 said:


> This is a classical message board after-all, so I would think most here would be in favor of studying music theory.
> 
> I think my aspirations to not pursue study of musical theory showcase my inner rock star. Several rock stars create from emotion rather than theory I feel (there are certainly exceptions, though).


Ok I wish you the best.


----------



## Captainnumber36

It is not an opinion that the fundamentals of music are there regardless of what the music is.

It is not an opinion that there are multiple sets of criteria that can be devised to assess a piece. You can believe in one personally as being the right one to you personally, but that is subjective.

I think you are forgetting the importance of the sub-conscious in composing. If you spend your time focusing on theory, then it can be hard to get emotionally inspired at times because the rules are so embedded in your sub-conscious.

Many people on this board could be successful composers if they made the right connections, and different people would enjoy the music. Everyone looks for something different in art, the key is to understand your personal set of criteria.

When assessing another's work, I analyze it from my own personal taste, and then what it accomplishes outside of my preferences. I think that is a very healthy habit for a good critique.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Czech composer said:


> Ok I wish you the best.


Thanks! :tiphat:


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> I'm terrible at analyzing music from a theoretical standpoint without music, but that's okay, I will attempt to.
> 
> Your piece begins with a simple melody, pretty much a scale. The left hand is a doing a repeated pattern. The I chord then shifts to a B-flat Major chord that doesn't really sound like it should resolve into anything except an E-flat Major Chord. But it does, and then moves back to the original melody, but then ends abruptly.
> 
> A second melody then appears, turns to major. The first beat note at 1:12 does not sound right, it just randomly appears. The rhythms all seem the same throughout the piece, as do the notes- you don't really ever get adventurous with them. Many of the notes are abrupt.
> 
> Emotional standpoint- this was easier- it's just trance music, boring and repetitive. I'm sorry, I can't put it otherwise. I couldn't even describe it as relaxing. Of course I wasn't covering my ears and shouting, but I felt nothing inside of me emotionally moved.


So you find my piece to lack a sense of adventure and boring because it is repetitive in rhythm and keys. I ask, are there any pieces that lack complex rhythmic/chordal changes that are repetitive that you do enjoy, or is this your criteria for what good music is? That is, music that has complex rhythmic/chordal changes?


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> It is not an opinion that the fundamentals of music are there regardless of what the music is.
> 
> It is not an opinion that there are multiple sets of criteria that can be devised to assess a piece. You can believe in one personally as being the right one to you personally, but that is subjective.
> 
> I think you are forgetting the importance of the sub-conscious in composing. If you spend your time focusing on theory, then it can be hard to get emotionally inspired at times because the rules are so embedded in your sub-conscious.
> 
> Many people on this board could be successful composers if they made the right connections, and different people would enjoy the music. Everyone looks for something different in art, the key is to understand your personal set of criteria.
> 
> When assessing another's work, I analyze it from my own personal taste, and then what it accomplishes outside of my preferences. I think that is a very healthy habit for a good critique.


No one focuses on theory when composing, I think- they focusing on using that theory to express their emotions to create music. Therefore they focus on the product of their composition.

I think theory can apply to everyone. Some have a better sense of theory than others, so I feel that it would help you.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> No one focuses on theory when composing, I think QUOTE]
> 
> You can't really believe that. I think lots of Bach's Fugues, for example, lean towards being inspired more by theory than inner emotion.
> 
> I think there will be an emotional reaction regardless of HOW the piece was composed and it will inevitably have emotion within it, for we are human and cannot escape it, but it just lays on a continuum.
> 
> Some music is just a study in theory, no doubt.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> So you find my piece to lack a sense of adventure and boring because it is repetitive in rhythm and keys. I ask, are there any pieces that lack complex rhythmic/chordal changes that are repetitive that you do enjoy, or is this your criteria for what good music is? That is, music that has complex rhythmic/chordal changes?


The music of Satie. I can't think of others at the moment but I'm sure there are.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> Why do all my threads in this sub-forum always turn into exhaustive debates, :lol:!
> 
> Tchaikov6,
> 
> I have learned that this sub-forum is not the right place to share my music. This audience, for the great majority, enjoys analyzing and comparing from a classical viewpoint instead of meeting my music where it's at; new age (mostly). I really should have ignored posts I didn't fully believe in, but some like DZC were very rude and obnoxious and hurtful with their thoughts. While they have the right to speak like that, I find it to be musical discrimination.
> 
> I believe feedback should be with tact and respect, which DZC, for example, did not start off doing. He was quite rude and obnoxious, parading his theoretical standard of analysis as objective fact. He continued to condemn me in future posts of my music, just because he had the right to, which was rather hurtful.
> 
> Truth be told, people look for different things in art, and those who are unable to meet a piece where it's at and observe it's purpose instead of having a finite set of rules for judgement at parading it around as fact are those opinions I regard with a grain of salt.
> 
> I would've been able to look past a lot of the narrow perspectives in evaluation of my music from many members on this sub-forum if it hadn't been for the crude and obnoxious/hurtful comments made by DZC and some others.
> 
> Most people that color an observation as fact actually mean it as an opinion and I get that, definitely.


I dunno. You're a catalyst for conflict . I don't see why anyone needs to refrain from posting music here. I don't think everyone compares your music to Classical, except for this piece which was meant to be classical I believe. Theory applies to all music, there's no escape. If someone wanted to compare your other music to Classical I would just ignore. But if they had to something to say like something is not consistent in your music, that would be a different story.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> Tchaikov6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one focuses on theory when composing, I think QUOTE]
> 
> You can't really believe that. I think lots of Bach's Fugues, for example, lean towards being inspired more by theory than inner emotion.
> 
> I think there will be an emotional reaction regardless of HOW the piece was composed and it will inevitably have emotion within it, for we are human and cannot escape it, but it just lays on a continuum.
> 
> Some music is just a study in theory, no doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> Bach misunderstood again. Which fugues in particular?
Click to expand...


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> The music of Satie. I can't think of others at the moment but I'm sure there are.


What does Satie succeed at doing that I fail to do, in your opinion?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> Captainnumber36 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bach misunderstood again. Which fugues in particular?
> 
> 
> 
> I think to the Art of the Fugue in particular. All of them.
Click to expand...


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> I dunno. You're a catalyst for conflict . I don't see why anyone needs to refrain from posting music here. I don't think everyone compares your music to Classical, except for this piece which was meant to be classical I believe. Theory applies to all music, there's no escape. If someone wanted to compare your other music to Classical I would just ignore. But if they had to something to say like something is not consistent in your music, that would be a different story.


If I found something to be rhythmically off about a piece, I would point out the time stamp and note on my opinion on it instead of saying, this is definitely inconsistent, and you really must change it.

People are more receptive to that language.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Czech composer said:


> Thats 100% true, but on the other hand there is big danger that if you don´t know the rules you can end up with a piece you think is absolutely on your own, but then you figure out that it follow exactly the same clishe rules you skipped in classroom.
> 
> I can understand because i was had similar opinion years ago and it was before I started studies at conservatory. I was affraid, that when I learn the rules I will be somehow by my subconsciousnesly forced to follow that rules and that my music will lost originality.
> But it didn´t happened. I was teached how to write sonata form, theme and variation form, fugue only for my later realization that i don´t want write any of these. But I am glad that I am familiar with it. I know more about music in general.


Ya, my bro and I had similar arguments as I'm having now on Yanni, Frank Mills and music theory. In the end he didn't like Yanni anymore and liked Foreigner, the 80's group. He just went with what he felt and liked. He played Fur Elise at less than a 1/4 speed and thought it was the best and mist original version ever. Music theory is not what someone without it might think it is, and it is only to someone's benefit to dig into it. Like I said before, someone without it can only speculate what it does or can do.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Ya, my bro and I had similar arguments as I'm having now on Yanni, Frank Mills and music theory. In the end he didn't like Yanni anymore and liked Foreigner, the 80's group. He just went with what he felt and liked. He played Fur Elise at less than a 1/4 speed and thought it was the best and mist original version ever. Music theory is not what someone without it might think it is, and it is only to someone's benefit to dig into it. Like I said before, someone without it can only speculate what it does or can do.


The essential debate here is does music theory help or hurt. The answer is, it's different for everyone. The only thing that matters is that the composer is accomplishing his/her goals as a musician.


----------



## Captainnumber36

You could engage in debate with your brother about what he thinks made his fur elise original and what made you think it wasn't. Perhaps objectively from a theoretical standpoint it is not all that original, but perhaps his expression emotionally was highly inventive and unique.

There are many ways to break down a concept for discussion.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> The essential debate here is does music theory help or hurt. The answer is, it's different for everyone. The only thing that matters is that the composer is accomplishing his/her goals as a musician.


I say it only helps or neutral. Believe me, I hated learning it, and thought it was boring and useless, but looking back it only did nothing but good. How do you know the answer when you didn't go through it? That is the part that befuddles me. Just learn it, and prove everyone wrong that it actually hurt your composing skills or is totally useless. But can it really be so bad you can't unlearn it? It is always up to the composer to choose what to apply, if anything at all.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> I say it only helps or neutral. Believe me, I hated learning it, and thought it was boring and useless, but looking back it only did nothing but good. How do you know the answer when you didn't go through it? That is the part that befuddles me. Just learn it, and prove everyone wrong that it actually hurt your composing skills or is totally useless. But can it really be so bad you can't unlearn it? It is always up to the composer to choose what to apply, if anything at all.


I definitely believe it can hurt if the composers goal is expression. If a composer's goal is to create theoretically satisfying and challenging works, then that's different.

I actually used to be completely against learning theory and have only in the past few years grown to understand why other's may pursue it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> I definitely believe it can hurt if the composers goal is expression. If a composer's goal is to create theoretically satisfying and challenging works, then that's different.
> 
> I actually used to be completely against learning theory and have only in the past few years grown to understand why other's may pursue it.


But you can turn it off can't you? If I wanted to, I believe I can still compose some gooey gunk, I actually did do some arrangement of a song for my wife who like that sort of thing. Maybe I practice up and record a video.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> But you can turn it off can't you? If I wanted to, I believe I can still compose some gooey gunk, I actually did do some arrangement of a song for my wife who like that sort of thing. Maybe I practice up and record a video.


I don't think it's as easy to turn off as you make it out to be, depending on the composer and their background.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Here is a composition by one of my favorite bands, Phish, that I believe is too caught up in theory. The guitarist (Trey) composed the piece and went to school for music.

Some of his pieces are wonderful, but the majority are not in my opinion.


----------



## beetzart

I would find it very hard to compose music without a certain amount of knowledge of music theory, in fact I don't think I could. I think being theory illiterate perhaps makes you limited in what you want to compose which is fine if you are happy with that. Nice melodies can be written but you won't understand why they work and why a passage of your music makes sense. So if it doesn't make sense you have to scramble around in the dark trying to find the correct harmonies. If you know music theory you would know that intervals of III and VI and an octave usually sound the tidiest when harmonising. Then if you know the rules you can break them. You know when to add dissonance and how to resolve it, and you can use more than a perfect cadence. If you don't know music theory you can really only happen to come across a deceptive cadence by chance instead of as a tactic or device. 

And my favourite part of music theory is form. Sonata form is such a beautiful concept and it is really easy to learn. Plus there is so much scope and flexibility within it to help you compose much longer pieces. Then the hook that starts every piece, the motif, which you can develop to your heart's content. Using music theory you will know how to add grace notes and ornaments to a motif to give it some variation. Like Chopin's famous nocturne Op. 9 No. 2 in E flat. It starts off simple then he just elaborates on this each time it returns. So if you know music theory and you study the great composers there are so many tricks to learn which are then intentionally used in your own compositions.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> Tchaikov6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think to the Art of the Fugue in particular. All of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Art of Fugue? That is a very emotional and musical work- Bach even included his own name in one of the fugues, which I think means that it is intended to be a very personal work.
Click to expand...


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> Captainnumber36 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Art of Fugue? That is a very emotional and musical work- Bach even included his own name in one of the fugues, which I think means that it is intended to be a very personal work.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in my book.
Click to expand...


----------



## Captainnumber36

beetzart said:


> I would find it very hard to compose music without a certain amount of knowledge of music theory, in fact I don't think I could. I think being theory illiterate perhaps makes you limited in what you want to compose which is fine if you are happy with that. Nice melodies can be written but you won't understand why they work and why a passage of your music makes sense. So if it doesn't make sense you have to scramble around in the dark trying to find the correct harmonies. If you know music theory you would know that intervals of III and VI and an octave usually sound the tidiest when harmonising. Then if you know the rules you can break them. You know when to add dissonance and how to resolve it, and you can use more than a perfect cadence. If you don't know music theory you can really only happen to come across a deceptive cadence by chance instead of as a tactic or device.
> 
> And my favourite part of music theory is form. Sonata form is such a beautiful concept and it is really easy to learn. Plus there is so much scope and flexibility within it to help you compose much longer pieces. Then the hook that starts every piece, the motif, which you can develop to your heart's content. Using music theory you will know how to add grace notes and ornaments to a motif to give it some variation. Like Chopin's famous nocturne Op. 9 No. 2 in E flat. It starts off simple then he just elaborates on this each time it returns. So if you know music theory and you study the great composers there are so many tricks to learn which are then intentionally used in your own compositions.


Whatever works for you and makes you happy! :tiphat:


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> Not in my book.


Okay- all I'm saying, and many other people are saying, is that learning music theory is worth the work. It can help you express your emotions through music a lot more- music theory doesn't stop you from writing emotional music, it increases what you are showing through your music. It makes the story you are telling in the music more detailed, more accurate, overall better.

I know you will never listen to this reasoning, and I guess I will never listen to yours. We both think each other is ignorant in the discussion. So be it. But I just think that music theory will help, not hurt.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> Okay- all I'm saying, and many other people are saying, is that learning music theory is worth the work. It can help you express your emotions through music a lot more- music theory doesn't stop you from writing emotional music, it increases what you are showing through your music. It makes the story you are telling in the music more detailed, more accurate, overall better.
> 
> I know you will never listen to this reasoning, and I guess I will never listen to yours. We both think each other is ignorant in the discussion. So be it. But I just think that music theory will help, not hurt.


I don't think you are ignorant, I respect your praise and method of utilizing music theory in composition, it just has never been mine. Live and let live!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't think you are ignorant, I respect your praise and method of utilizing music theory in composition, it just has never been mine. Live and let live!


i wrote a new piece, a more simplistic melody and harmony. Want to throw in some more virtuostic pizzazz first. This time, I'll practice up a lot more before I start posting. it is my longest at over 2 1/2 minutes.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> i wrote a new piece, a more simplistic melody and harmony. Want to throw in some more virtuostic pizzazz first. This time, I'll practice up a lot more before I start posting. it is my longest at over 2 1/2 minutes.


Looking forward to it.


----------



## Jacob Brooks

Tchaikov6 said:


> Okay- all I'm saying, and many other people are saying, is that learning music theory is worth the work. It can help you express your emotions through music a lot more- music theory doesn't stop you from writing emotional music, it increases what you are showing through your music. It makes the story you are telling in the music more detailed, more accurate, overall better.
> 
> I know you will never listen to this reasoning, and I guess I will never listen to yours. We both think each other is ignorant in the discussion. So be it. But I just think that music theory will help, not hurt.


This is totally true. The more I've learned theory the more my music has improved in all capacities, including moving me more. I've recently learned things from theory that infuse feelings I could never have before. It is a joy!


----------



## nikola

beetzart said:


> I would find it very hard to compose music without a certain amount of knowledge of music theory, in fact I don't think I could. I think being theory illiterate perhaps makes you limited in what you want to compose which is fine if you are happy with that. Nice melodies can be written but you won't understand why they work and why a passage of your music makes sense. So if it doesn't make sense you have to scramble around in the dark trying to find the correct harmonies. If you know music theory you would know that intervals of III and VI and an octave usually sound the tidiest when harmonising. Then if you know the rules you can break them. You know when to add dissonance and how to resolve it, and you can use more than a perfect cadence. If you don't know music theory you can really only happen to come across a deceptive cadence by chance instead of as a tactic or device.
> 
> And my favourite part of music theory is form. Sonata form is such a beautiful concept and it is really easy to learn. Plus there is so much scope and flexibility within it to help you compose much longer pieces. Then the hook that starts every piece, the motif, which you can develop to your heart's content. Using music theory you will know how to add grace notes and ornaments to a motif to give it some variation. Like Chopin's famous nocturne Op. 9 No. 2 in E flat. It starts off simple then he just elaborates on this each time it returns. So if you know music theory and you study the great composers there are so many tricks to learn which are then intentionally used in your own compositions.


If someone wants to compose classical music, then he would have to learn musical theory and rules of classical music.
But someone posted here a video where somoene said in it, if I remember correctly, that there were no musical theory for jazz before 1970's. 
What does that say to you? How could they even develop jazz then? First of all, jazz wasn't based on classical music. It developed from blues and ragtime. Do you think that blues musicians (or African music) had musical theories? 
No. People made music first... they made genres... they made sounds. Even hundreds of years or after decades after that, theories were made BASED ON THE MUSIC THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
So, when you say that you couldn't compose something without musical theory, of course you wouldn't because you don't compose your own music. You compose music based on chords and harmonies of certain musical style.

Vangelis didn't want to compose classical music. I don't want to compose classical music. I wanted to compose MY music and I did compose it. 
How could I know why some chords work together? Why should I have to know? I can hear do they work or not. 
How could first jazz or blues musicians know why their combinations of tones work? They heard it. They didn't learn musical theory. 
If they all had music education based on classical music there would never be jazz. There would also never be unique Vangelis or Yanni music. Or even Zimmer's music. There would never be rock music. People from around the world wereusing different 'theory rules', but they all developed music FIRST based on their hearing, mentality, etx.

I wanted to compose my music. I chose the chords that I wanted to choose. That's the creative freedom. I didn't need templates to tell me which chords 'work' because I didn't want to use those chords. I wanted to compose something that is mine and only mine with all possible flaws, but it will sound the way I want it to sound. And no, it's not classical music, but that doesn't mean it's somehow 'wrong' music just like Vangelis music isn't wrong or jazz music isn't wrong.

Theory is not bad and I never said that, but people without talent won't ever become great musicians by knowing only rules. They can be poor copies of classical music that existed 200 years ago.

Rules are made AFTER the music was made and that is something that some people here simply can't comprehend. You can't made rules for something that doesn't exist in music. You can only made rules based on music that already exists.
I feel sorry for someone who can't put a few meaningful tones together without someone telling him what chords work together. That means those chords were already used. Why should I need those!? I don't need them. I don't compose music based on music from musicians who are dead for hundreds of years.

Does that mean that my lack of knowledge is better than your knowledge? Of course not. It's great that you have a musical education. It means A LOT. 
It's only that I don't want and don't need musical education because I simply don't give a ****** about it. I want to compose MY MUSIC with all their good and bad sides. That's what makes me fulfilled, happy and inspired. It's my music for my needs. Believe it or not, but many people actually genuinely like my pieces. Learning theory is for some other composers. For you who have different imagination about what music is.

There is no correct way to compose music. There are only people with or without talent, sensibility or hearing to compose it. Musical education will help you, but it won't turn you into next Beethoven or Morricone or Vangelis if you don't have a talent.


----------



## Czech composer

nikola said:


> If someone wants to compose classical music, then he would have to learn musical theory and rules of classical music.
> But someone posted here a video where somoene said in it, if I remember correctly, that there were no musical theory for jazz before 1970's.
> What does that say to you? How could they even develop jazz then? First of all, jazz wasn't based on classical music. It developed from blues and ragtime. Do you think that blues musicians (or African music) had musical theories?
> No. People made music first... they made genres... they made sounds. Even hundreds of years or after decades after that, theories were made BASED ON THE MUSIC THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
> So, when you say that you couldn't compose something without musical theory, of course you wouldn't because you don't compose your own music. You compose music based on chords and harmonies of certain musical style.
> 
> Vangelis didn't want to compose classical music. I don't want to compose classical music. I wanted to compose MY music and I did compose it.
> How could I know why some chords work together? Why should I have to know? I can hear do they work or not.
> How could first jazz or blues musicians know why their combinations of tones work? They heard it. They didn't learn musical theory.
> If they all had music education based on classical music there would never be jazz. There would also never be unique Vangelis or Yanni music. Or even Zimmer's music. There would never be rock music. People from around the world wereusing different 'theory rules', but they all developed music FIRST based on their hearing, mentality, etx.
> 
> I wanted to compose my music. I chose the chords that I wanted to choose. That's the creative freedom. I didn't need templates to tell me which chords 'work' because I didn't want to use those chords. I wanted to compose something that is mine and only mine with all possible flaws, but it will sound the way I want it to sound. And no, it's not classical music, but that doesn't mean it's somehow 'wrong' music just like Vangelis music isn't wrong or jazz music isn't wrong.
> 
> Theory is not bad and I never said that, but people without talent won't ever become great musicians by knowing only rules. They can be poor copies of classical music that existed 200 years ago.
> 
> Rules are made AFTER the music was made and that is something that some people here simply can't comprehend. You can't made rules for something that doesn't exist in music. You can only made rules based on music that already exists.
> I feel sorry for someone who can't put a few meaningful tones together without someone telling him what chords work together. That means those chords were already used. Why should I need those!? I don't need them. I don't compose music based on music from musicians who are dead for hundreds of years.
> 
> Does that mean that my lack of knowledge is better than your knowledge? Of course not. It's great that you have a musical education. It means A LOT.
> It's only that I don't want and don't need musical education because I simply don't give a ****** about it. I want to compose MY MUSIC with all their good and bad sides. That's what makes me fulfilled, happy and inspired. It's my music for my needs. Believe it or not, but many people actually genuinely like my pieces. Learning theory is for some other composers. For you who have different imagination about what music is.
> 
> There is no correct way to compose music. There are only people with or without talent, sensibility or hearing to compose it. Musical education will help you, but it won't turn you into next Beethoven or Morricone or Vangelis if you don't have a talent.


Again. I agree on many points, but it would be fine I you can understand one thing. 
Studying classical music theory doesn´t necessary have to change you to classical composer.
Two composers I analyze most are Bach and Beethoven. Do you think that this my composition sounds
like Bach or Beethoven? 



(sorry it is meldoram in czech language, so you will not understand lyrics, but there is an instrumental intro)


----------



## nikola

Czech composer said:


> Again. I agree on many points, but it would be fine I you can understand one thing.
> Studying classical music theory doesn´t necessary have to change you to classical composer.
> Two composers I analyze most are Bach and Beethoven. Do you think that this my composition sounds
> like Bach or Beethoven?
> 
> 
> 
> (sorry it is meldoram in czech language, so you will not understand lyrics, but there is an instrumental intro)


Well, of course, many pop songs are actually more based on classical music than, for example, on jazz. Some pop songs are more based on jazz. The thing is that there are used those harmonic structures that work for human ear. You can learn those structures by studying jazz rules or classical rules or simply composing them by ear. 
It's always the same.

How do you think that I compose this little and simple piece.. it may sound like quasi classical, but it's not and I would never claim it is. I even don't know what it is and it's not that I care, but I like such pieces more than some complex classical pieces:





Here in the middle part I even decided to be more 'creative', but not because I think I must be creative, but because it worked for main idea of the piece and because I wanted to push myself even a little further at that moment:





This was my little tribute to Beethoven... you can even hear the 'imitation' of arpeggio from 'Moonlight Sonata' in the middle slow part. It's not the same because I don't know what the same tones are and it's not important to me. It's my tribute to his passionate music that I actually do love, especially symphonies:





These are also very simple, but I didn't need theory to tell me what to do.. I wanted to feel those.. I let melody sometimes to lead me where it wants me to go. 









Some of those pieces are awfully played, especially this one.. I glued parts together because I couldn't play it at once.. I even played melody separately from LH chords:





This one is pretty much gloomy (and technically simple), but I achieved with it pretty much what I wanted to achieve at that moment:





and with those 3:













I even have some more 'new age-y' pieces:













and some dramatic ones:









And those are some of the latest I composed last year:













All those pieces are not based on any musical theory. They're not pretending to be something they aren't. I don't even consider myself to be a piano player. I truly suck at it. I don't even consider those pieces to be perfect, but I consider them to be good because they served their purpose from amateurish composer who always wanted to CREATE something considering music. They made me happy. They made some other people liked those. It is fulfilling experience to compose music and not to be obligated anything to anyone. It's liberating. 
All the flaws and all the simplicity of those doesn't bother me a bit. They're exactly what I wanted them to be. They're not perfect, but they are ME. I will never earn money on music and I don't intend to.


----------



## beetzart

A scientific analogy relates to what was once said to a biologist/botanist etc. A person would say the scientist ruins the beauty of a flower by cutting it up and looking at it under the microscope. The scientist disagrees and says that studying the flower to a greater depth actually provides/shows even deeper beauty. This is the same with music, especially classical music. When you can actually understand a manuscript of say Beethoven's 5th and take it apart to see what Beethoven did to make it so great is, for me, very musically liberating and exciting. Doing so doesn't detract from the overall intelligence of the piece at all. 

Nikola, I appreciate you comments, and like your compositions, but I know literally nothing about Jazz so can't comment on your remarks in that respect.


----------



## nikola

beetzart said:


> A scientific analogy relates to what was once said to a biologist/botanist etc. A person would say the scientist ruins the beauty of a flower by cutting it up and looking at it under the microscope. The scientist disagrees and says that studying the flower to a greater depth actually provides/shows even deeper beauty. This is the same with music, especially classical music. When you can actually understand a manuscript of say Beethoven's 5th and take it apart to see what Beethoven did to make it so great is, for me, very musically liberating and exciting. Doing so doesn't detract from the overall intelligence of the piece at all.
> 
> Nikola, I appreciate you comments, and like your compositions, but I know literally nothing about Jazz so can't comment on your remarks in that respect.


Knowledge is never limitating, of course, but music is not exact science and its purpose is something completely different. Learning to play the instrument and learning the theory CAN'T be bad thing ever, but that wasn't my point. My point was that there are many musicians who proved that without musical education they can compose unique and great music.

I neither have knowledge and I even don't know how to play the piano. That didn't stop me to compose and that was at that moment my main goal - to compose music no matter what. I am 36 years old. The first time in my life that I touched keyboard key was when I was 34. I didn't compose those little pieces to become the next Beethoven. I was composing primarily to make myself happy... to create with music atmosphere and chords I would actually enjoy while listening to those. 
If I studied the music and learning to play the piano since I was 3 maybe today I would be somehow in the music world, but life doesn't always give us what we would like to do.

I also don't know much about jazz either, but I can hear it. If you can hear it too, you know enough.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Why do people form opinions about music theory that don't actually know what it is? Music theory is about tonal relationships, and how close or far, so nothing is beyond its scope. It is also about rhythmic patterns, etc. It doesn't predefine anything. You can have 3rd, 4th chords which sound most pleasing to ear, but even 9th, 11th, 13th chords that have rarely been used, and even chords they don't have names for. I used some 9th chords, and even one with no name for in my last composition, which I included purely because it had the sound I was looking for. You pick any few notes and there is a relationship, any rhythm, and it can be put on paper.

This applies to all kinds of music, and even to *non-existing ones*. That is why to be original, whichever way it could really mean, you have to find what hasn't been used before, and in order to do that, you need to know what has been used. There are pop songs that use the exact same chord progressions as Classical, and it is original, because of utilzijg different things, like rhythms, timbres, etc. Sorry, but nobody who composes on whim, and based on what they like or thinks sounds good can really find or do anything new, because there are people just like them trying to do the same thing.

There are a finite number of melodies and rhythms. From those probably over half sound so similar that they could be judged to be really the same thing other than a note or two in closely related usage. And less than a quarter of those could be considered sounding remotely good. And of these, only 5% of what is accessible by whim, feeling (which are just basically human algorithms). Those who think music is a blank slate, fool themselves into thinking they can create something original, by tinkering and hearing what sounds good. Classical music utliizes all chords rhythms found in Rock and Blues. Some Jazz focused on certain tonal relationships more than Classical, which formed Jazz conventions, but has not explored anything outside of Classical. That has become the definition of Classical as being the most encompassing genre. But there are still things Classical has not yet explored, but this is still not outside the scope of Music Theory.

In summary, other genres are actually Classical Music made more accessible for those who don't like it. Yanni, Vangelis, Frank Mills, and many ohers all benefitted from this. The only thing that makes non-Classical unique is the exploration of different timbres, which Vangelis and Morricone did more than those others, and focus on certain tonal or rhythmic relationships more (that is how you get funk, R&B, etc.) New Age and Jazz are in fact a narrower, specific form of Classical. Ellington himself said Jazz is only modern Classical.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> Why do people form opinions about music theory that don't actually know what it is? Music theory is about tonal relationships, and how close or far, so nothing is beyond its scope. It is also about rhythmic patterns, etc. It doesn't predefine anything. You can have 3rd, 4th chords which sound most pleasing to ear, but even 9th, 11th, 13th chords that have rarely been used, and even chords they don't have names for. I used some 9th chords, and even one with no name for in my last composition, which I included purely because it had the sound I was looking for. You pick any few notes and there is a relationship, any rhythm, and it can be put on paper.
> 
> This applies to all kinds of music, and even to *non-existing ones*. That is why to be original, whichever way it could really mean, you have to find what hasn't been used before, and in order to do that, you need to know what has been used. There are pop songs that use the exact same chord progressions as Classical, and it is original, because of utilzijg different things, like rhythms, timbres, etc. Sorry, but nobody who composes on whim, and based on what they like or thinks sounds good can really find or do anything new, because there are people just like them trying to do the same thing.
> 
> There are a finite number of melodies and rhythms. From those probably over half sound so similar that they could be judged to be really the same thing other than a note or two in closely related usage. And less than a quarter of those could be considered sounding remotely good. And of these, only 5% of what is accessible by whim, feeling (which are just basically human algorithms). Those who think music is a blank slate, fool themselves into thinking they can create something original, by tinkering and hearing what sounds good. Classical music utliizes all chords rhythms found in Rock and Blues. Some Jazz focused on certain tonal relationships more than Classical, which formed Jazz conventions, but has not explored anything outside of Classical. That has become the definition of Classical as being the most encompassing genre. But there are still things Classical has not yet explored, but this is still not outside the scope of Music Theory.
> 
> In summary, other genres are actually Classical Music made more accessible for those who don't like it. Yanni, Vangelis, Frank Mills, and many ohers all benefitted from this. The only thing that makes non-Classical unique is the exploration of different timbres, which Vangelis and Morricone did more than those others, and focus on certain tonal or rhythmic relationships more (that is how you get funk, R&B, etc.) New Age and Jazz are in fact a narrower, specific form of Classical. Ellington himself said Jazz is only modern Classical.


Read my post #301 again if you didn't. Jazz was created without any musical theory. Jazz doesn't know there is a classical music. Indian folk music doesn't know there is classical music or rules. Folk music doesn't know. Blues doesn't know. All those genres were created way before any musical rules for them. You can't create rules without music to exist first.
What is so hard to comprehend? 
Banalyzing musical geniuses like Vangelis and Yanni only shows your mindset and nothing else. You can't understrand what 'original is'. Original is not 'new never heard before' coimbination of tones. Original is actually how people react to combination of tones/chords/sounds. That's why Vangelis is so loved and appreciated because he achieved something and made something that no classical composer before him ever did (or after). Just because you think that if you massacre his music and put all those parts under the microscope you won't find 'new tone' or extremely 'new combination' of those and that that is to you the reason why he 'isn't original', only shows that you don't know what 'original' means.


----------



## nikola

To put it more simply, Vangelis has his own unique style
Yanni has his own unique style. 
And yes, they are original.


----------



## beetzart

I enjoy using Sibelius 8 to write down my compositions which would be near on impossible without some basic music theory. So, nikola, I guess it is good you have a good memory and a camcorder! Are you not in the slightest bit interested in learning notation? Sorry if you have already answered that, I must have missed it if so!


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't think you are ignorant, I respect your praise and method of utilizing music theory in composition, it just has never been mine. Live and let live!


I guess I would agree that I don't think you are ignorant either, we just can't see what the other person is saying...


----------



## paulc

@beetzart - I doubt nikola is interested. I sent her some very basic information about musical notation and terminology almost two years ago, enough to allow her to read & understand Alfred Mann's The Study of Counterpoint. She asked if it was difficult to understand, which it really isn't! She expressed a willingness to learn back then, but nothing ever came of it.

I really like some of her ideas and her intuition (Raindrops starts off nice & I complimented parts of an earlier piece of hers, Prelude #2 which has now disappeared?), but her pieces are let down by weak voice-leading, unresolved dissonance at times and thematic incoherence... and other 'elitist' concepts.

I wanted to help, not discourage anyone.


----------



## nikola

paulc said:


> @beetzart - I doubt nikola is interested. I sent her some very basic information about musical notation and terminology almost two years ago, enough to allow her to read & understand Alfred Mann's The Study of Counterpoint. She asked if it was difficult to understand, which it really isn't! She expressed a willingness to learn back then, but nothing ever came of it.
> 
> I really like some of her ideas and her intuition (Raindrops starts off nice & I complimented parts of an earlier piece of hers, Prelude #2 which has now disappeared?), but her pieces are let down by weak voice-leading, unresolved dissonance at times and thematic incoherence... and other 'elitist' concepts.
> 
> I wanted to help, not discourage anyone.


'She' is actually 'he' unless you believe that Nikola Tesla is female. 
Yes, everything you mention is quite unnecessary for my music because I'm not composing classical music. 'Prelude #2' is still on my channel.


----------



## nikola

beetzart said:


> I enjoy using Sibelius 8 to write down my compositions which would be near on impossible without some basic music theory. So, nikola, I guess it is good you have a good memory and a camcorder! Are you not in the slightest bit interested in learning notation? Sorry if you have already answered that, I must have missed it if so!


I simply don't have a time or will to learn notation. I used simple microphone to record my music.


----------



## beetzart

nikola said:


> I simply don't have a time or will to learn notation. I used simple microphone to record my music.


That's your choice and I respect that. If you ever decide to find the time to learn MT then I guarantee it will give you many more skills to enhance your music.

All the best though!


----------



## paulc

nikola said:


> 'She' is actually 'he' unless you believe that Nikola Tesla is female.


Oh, so Nikola Tesla is your name? I am talking to the engineer, physicist & futurist who died in 1943. Not some random person on the internet called Nikola, male or female who adopted this alias for whatever reason? I should have known!

Is that your real name? My username is honest.


----------



## nikola

paulc said:


> Oh, so Nikola Tesla is your name? I am talking to the engineer, physicist & futurist who died in 1943. Not some random person on the internet called Nikola, male or female who adopted this alias for whatever reason? I should have known!
> 
> Is that your real name? My username is honest.


Yes, Nikola is my real name. I am from Croatia and it's male name here. If my english sometimes sucks, it's because of that... no, not because of the name


----------



## Bulldog

This is an odd thread. We have people who are anti-music theory because they are deficient in music theory. The hero worship of Yanni is a hoot. There must be other music websites that are more in the comfort zone of these folks than TC.


----------



## paulc

Ok Nikola, sorry for any offence. 

My offer to help you with basic theory stands. I am by no means an expert and understand that you are sceptical about theory, but I really do think it will help you, as it has me.

What have you got to lose?


----------



## nikola

paulc said:


> Ok Nikola, sorry for any offence.
> 
> My offer to help you with basic theory stands. I am by no means an expert and understand that you are sceptical about theory, but I really do think it will help you, as it has me.
> 
> What have you got to lose?


I'm not offended. 
I don't have anything to lose except precious time. I'm too old after learning hundreds of things to learn this thing too.


----------



## nikola

Bulldog said:


> This is an odd thread. We have people who are anti-music theory because they are deficient in music theory. The hero worship of Yanni is a hoot. There must be other music websites that are more in the comfort zone of these folks than TC.


I've heard a lot of uninspired gymnastics with tones and chords on this board relying only on music theory. There must be also other music websites for all those students.


----------



## paulc

Oh C'mon.. you love music more than those hundreds of other things.  I'm older than you too, lol. Fux wrote that if you aren't into composition for musical curiosity, rather than money and fame - you might as well give up. Is that you!? I don't think so.


----------



## Bulldog

nikola said:


> I've heard a lot of uninspired gymnastics with tones and chords on this board relying only on music theory. There must be also other music websites for all those students.


From all your postings, it appears that classical music doesn't have much of a hold on you. Why stay, unless you just enjoy sticking your finger in the classical balloon.


----------



## nikola

Bulldog said:


> From all your postings, it appears that classical music doesn't have much of a hold on you. Why stay, unless you just enjoy sticking your finger in the classical balloon.


I do like a lot of classical music. And a lot of it I don't like. I'll continue to stick my finger in balloon


----------



## nikola

paulc said:


> Oh C'mon.. you love music more than those hundreds of other things.  I'm older than you too, lol. Fux wrote that if you aren't into composition for musical curiosity, rather than money and fame - you might as well give up. Is that you!? I don't think so.


You can always pay me for every piece I compose


----------



## nikola

For you who claim that I hate classical music, I will post here some of my favorite classical piano pieces... I guess that I'll be somehow predictable:


























and many more, of course :devil:


----------



## Bulldog

Mozart's K.310 is one of the listed works on the Rolls-Royce Piano Sonatas Survival game, and it's not doing very well. Come on over and give it your support.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> I guess I would agree that I don't think you are ignorant either, we just can't see what the other person is saying...


I see what you are saying, you believe studying music theory can enhance your ability to compose and break the rules better if you so choose to.

That just has never been my method, but, I get it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> Read my post #301 again if you didn't. Jazz was created without any musical theory. Jazz doesn't know there is a classical music. Indian folk music doesn't know there is classical music or rules. Folk music doesn't know. Blues doesn't know. All those genres were created way before any musical rules for them. You can't create rules without music to exist first.
> What is so hard to comprehend?
> Banalyzing musical geniuses like Vangelis and Yanni only shows your mindset and nothing else. You can't understrand what 'original is'. Original is not 'new never heard before' coimbination of tones. Original is actually how people react to combination of tones/chords/sounds. That's why Vangelis is so loved and appreciated because he achieved something and made something that no classical composer before him ever did (or after). Just because you think that if you massacre his music and put all those parts under the microscope you won't find 'new tone' or extremely 'new combination' of those and that that is to you the reason why he 'isn't original', only shows that you don't know what 'original' means.


Music theory existed before Jazz, etc. It is about tonal relationships as I said before, which applies to all music. Music theory is beyond rules. Ok, if you want to claim you know it without studying it, there's not much else to say.


----------



## brianvds

Yikes, what a fight the whole thing turned into. Or, of course, we could call it a scintillating discussion. 

Saw a long and interesting documentary on YouTube about Vangelis yesterday:






It includes footage of him improvising. The man is a genius, and no question about that.

Does he reject music theory? I doubt it, because the way in which he harmonizes his lovely melodies would not have been unfamiliar to Haydn or Mozart. Of course, he doesn't know music theory in the same sense as classical musicians do, because he can't read notes. But it is pretty clear that he spent a great deal of time listening to all kinds of music, and became familiar with the procedures they use. He has an intuitive feel for theory. So does Yanni. They both know which chords to use when and where.

It can be handy to know some of this, though I confess I have found it almost impossible to do so myself. Just a few days ago I Googled something along the lines lines of "how to harmonize a melody", and got to a page which showed the process in detail: simple, uninspired melody, and then a whole explanation of how to harmonize it, followed by the melody greatly improved and enriched by suitable chords. There is no doubt that knowing this stuff is a powerful tool.

But I could not make head or tails of the explanation: "identify the cadences, find the new key, identify the new leading note, use a dominant seventh in the third inversion..." It's total Greek to me. It's total Greek to Vangelis too, though he may well be able to come up with that sort of harmonization because he knows it in an intuitive manner. Or maybe not. One would have to ask him. Come to think of it, he _is_ Greek, so perhaps the expression "it's Greek to me" doesn't apply to him. 

Now I have a very limited intuitive sense for theory, in that if I have a melody, I usually have little difficulty coming up with suitable bass notes and some fairly simple, transparent chords with which to harmonize it. Thus my music tends to be very simple, and have a somewhat stark feel, a bit like you get in medieval music (where harmony was also often quite simple, without the enriched chords that would eventually slip into music).

This approach works perfectly well for composing New Agey sort of music; I wouldn't dream of trying to compose a sonata or fugue or something like that.

I see no reason to have endless fights over such things. In the longer run, the cream quite automatically rises to the top. There isn't a thing any amount of analysis or criticism can do to prevent it. Some pieces of music have that whatever-it-is that makes them evergreen, and such pieces of music slip into the collective repertoire. Some are very simple, and owe their enduring popularity to a catchy tune (something like _Greensleeves_ comes to mind, and it's centuries old now!) Others make it into the long term because they are towering monuments of musical architecture, like Bach's fugues.

There is no way to tell which pieces it's going to be. Some are pretty well done, by composers with vastly more musical knowledge than Vangelis, and somehow their music still disappears - how often do we still perform or listen to Dittersdorf or Raff? How many contemporaries of Schubert realized that some of his songs would become so popular that people thought they are folk songs? Beethoven thought the greatest of his contemporaries was Cherubini. Yes, even Beethoven was clueless when it came to identifying the greatest masters of his own time.

We are equally clueless. Thus, I suggest we all do whatever makes us musically happy, and leave posterity to sort out its own problems.

All that said, I'll stick my neck out and say this: one thing (by no means the only thing, but a very important thing) that makes a piece last into the long term is a good tune. Mozart and Dittersdorf used precisely the same harmonic procedures. One of them could compose catchy tunes, the other could not. Mendelssohn and Raff used pretty much the exact same music theory. One of them composed good tunes, the other did not. Taking Mendelssohn alone, his most enduringly popular works are the ones in which he used his best and most catchy tunes.

So it is: if you cannot compose a good tune, you're in trouble, and if you can, you have an edge. At least as far as lasting into the long term is concerned. I think everyone knows this at some level, and thus composers who can't come up with good tunes are sometimes furiously jealous of those who can. But there's hope for them too; Schoenberg isn't exactly whistled in the shower, but his music is also still performed, a good century after it was composed. As I say above, a good tune isn't the only thing that matters. As I also say above, no one really knows what it is that makes one piece great and another not so great. If we did, we'd be able to consistently come up with great music.

As for me, the little bit of theory I do know actually does help me now and then, and I would have liked to know more, but at the moment I simply don't have the time. So simple New Agey pieces it is, then.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> Music theory existed before Jazz, etc. It is about tonal relationships as I said before, which applies to all music. Music theory is beyond rules. Ok, if you want to claim you know it without studying it, there's not much else to say.


And jazz is based on music that didn't learn your musical theory. So? What's so hard to understand? Almost all genres were made without they even know there is some 'western music theory' out there. What is your point? Once in the future they will made rules based on someone's music too. That's how it works.


----------



## nikola

brianvds said:


> Yikes, what a fight the whole thing turned into. Or, of course, we could call it a scintillating discussion.
> 
> Saw a long and interesting documentary on YouTube about Vangelis yesterday:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It includes footage of him improvising. The man is a genius, and no question about that.
> 
> Does he reject music theory? I doubt it, because the way in which he harmonizes his lovely melodies would not have been unfamiliar to Haydn or Mozart. Of course, he doesn't know music theory in the same sense as classical musicians do, because he can't read notes. But it is pretty clear that he spent a great deal of time listening to all kinds of music, and became familiar with the procedures they use. He has an intuitive feel for theory. So does Yanni. They both know which chords to use when and where.
> 
> It can be handy to know some of this, though I confess I have found it almost impossible to do so myself. Just a few days ago I Googled something along the lines lines of "how to harmonize a melody", and got to a page which showed the process in detail: simple, uninspired melody, and then a whole explanation of how to harmonize it, followed by the melody greatly improved and enriched by suitable chords. There is no doubt that knowing this stuff is a powerful tool.
> 
> But I could not make head or tails of the explanation: "identify the cadences, find the new key, identify the new leading note, use a dominant seventh in the third inversion..." It's total Greek to me. It's total Greek to Vangelis too, though he may well be able to come up with that sort of harmonization because he knows it in an intuitive manner. Or maybe not. One would have to ask him. Come to think of it, he _is_ Greek, so perhaps the expression "it's Greek to me" doesn't apply to him.
> 
> Now I have a very limited intuitive sense for theory, in that if I have a melody, I usually have little difficulty coming up with suitable bass notes and some fairly simple, transparent chords with which to harmonize it. Thus my music tends to be very simple, and have a somewhat stark feel, a bit like you get in medieval music (where harmony was also often quite simple, without the enriched chords that would eventually slip into music).
> 
> This approach works perfectly well for composing New Agey sort of music; I wouldn't dream of trying to compose a sonata or fugue or something like that.
> 
> I see no reason to have endless fights over such things. In the longer run, the cream quite automatically rises to the top. There isn't a thing any amount of analysis or criticism can do to prevent it. Some pieces of music have that whatever-it-is that makes them evergreen, and such pieces of music slip into the collective repertoire. Some are very simple, and owe their enduring popularity to a catchy tune (something like _Greensleeves_ comes to mind, and it's centuries old now!) Others make it into the long term because they are towering monuments of musical architecture, like Bach's fugues.
> 
> There is no way to tell which pieces it's going to be. Some are pretty well done, by composers with vastly more musical knowledge than Vangelis, and somehow their music still disappears - how often do we still perform or listen to Dittersdorf or Raff? How many contemporaries of Schubert realized that some of his songs would become so popular that people thought they are folk songs? Beethoven thought the greatest of his contemporaries was Cherubini. Yes, even Beethoven was clueless when it came to identifying the greatest masters of his own time.
> 
> We are equally clueless. Thus, I suggest we all do whatever makes us musically happy, and leave posterity to sort out its own problems.
> 
> All that said, I'll stick my neck out and say this: one thing (by no means the only thing, but a very important thing) that makes a piece last into the long term is a good tune. Mozart and Dittersdorf used precisely the same harmonic procedures. One of them could compose catchy tunes, the other could not. Mendelssohn and Raff used pretty much the exact same music theory. One of them composed good tunes, the other did not. Taking Mendelssohn alone, his most enduringly popular works are the ones in which he used his best and most catchy tunes.
> 
> So it is: if you cannot compose a good tune, you're in trouble, and if you can, you have an edge. At least as far as lasting into the long term is concerned. I think everyone knows this at some level, and thus composers who can't come up with good tunes are sometimes furiously jealous of those who can. But there's hope for them too; Schoenberg isn't exactly whistled in the shower, but his music is also still performed, a good century after it was composed. As I say above, a good tune isn't the only thing that matters. As I also say above, no one really knows what it is that makes one piece great and another not so great. If we did, we'd be able to consistently come up with great music.
> 
> As for me, the little bit of theory I do know actually does help me now and then, and I would have liked to know more, but at the moment I simply don't have the time. So simple New Agey pieces it is, then.


Some good points. 'Catchy tune' is actually what counts most of the time, but Beethoven was more like a gret 'construction worker' than tune maker and we still love his music. There is no much 'tune to sing along' in his Moonlight Sonata, yet it's one of the most powerful piano pieces ever.

Vangelis and Yanni music isn't simple at all. It's way more complex in its melodies construction than one would like to believe. Many overlapping melodies/harmonies, etc. I would say that Yanni's music is even more complex on that level than Vangelis who relies more on grandiose sound - sometimes small themes building to something big. And sometimes he even makes pretty much impressive multilayered music, like this for example:









Not 2 most favorite albums to me, but still some of his most ambitious albums from mid 80's.

Just because some people would like to categorize some music as 'simple' it doesn't mean it is. You can hear Yanni's 'Live at Acropolis' or '*Tribute*' albums or even his earlier Keys to Imagination' or '*Out of Silence*' albums. Nothing boring, lazy, simple or banal there. Very rich music full of harmonies, improvisation and many overlapping rythms and melodies. I've heard much more lazy and meaningless classical music than some brilliant music by Yanni and Vangelis. They don't even consider themselves to be 'new age'. Yanni said that there is no strict category for what he is doing. He is using world/ethno/new age/progressive elements etc... just like Vangelis actually, but they're still very different.

And no, they don't have anything against music theory... they just don't care for it and compose music by using their hearing, instinct and sensibility for music.


----------



## nikola

I was listening to some music by Hovhaness lately. It is way more sterile and lazy than anything Vangelis or Yanni could ever made. Although he ain't for sure that bad or great, I feel sorry for him considering how Bernstein was rude about his music and that such reaction from Bernstein and Copland actually pretty much depressed Hovhaness. 
His music is pretty much nice, but not much more. It's not somethng I would listen unless to put me to sleep. It doesn't evoke much in me.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> And jazz is based on music that didn't learn your musical theory. So? What's so hard to understand? Almost all genres were made without they even know there is some 'western music theory' out there. What is your point? Once in the future they will made rules based on someone's music too. That's how it works.


Jazz, rock, Oriental, all sounds you hear is based on music theory whether you know or not, yes even your own music. it can all be analyzed with theoretical concepts. Music is not based on theory doesn't exist.

it even dictates general emotions, such as sad, happy, triumphant. For any sounds to be made sense of, guess what! It involves Music Theory


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> Jazz, rock, Oriental, all sounds you hear is based on music theory whether you know or not, yes even your own music. it can all be analyzed with theoretical concepts. Music is not based on theory doesn't exist.
> 
> it even dictates general emotions, such as sad, happy, triumphant. For any sounds to be made sense of, guess what! It involves Music Theory


I must admit that I never read before anything that makes less sense. Rules didn't exist before music. People were making music... rules came after that. Folk music, blues, jazz, etc. Most of those styles came first... rules for their music came after. If you don't believe look once again the video posted by czech guy. 
If my music is based on theory that means that I don't have to learn it.. lol.. you're probably not aware that what you said right now doesn't make any sense whatsoever. 
Theory is not music. It never will be. It'a s tool for people like you.


----------



## beetzart

Of course the rules have always existed, we just discovered them and it made sense of music. Just like the laws of physics have always been there.


----------



## nikola

beetzart said:


> Of course the rules have always existed, we just discovered them and it made sense of music. Just like the laws of physics have always been there.


Physics is pretty much exact science (at least for planet Earth). On other planets you have different physics. 
Music is not exact science. It is art. You can't break the rules of physics, but you can break rules of art ever day again and again. Rules were made based on music that already existed.


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola said:


> Physics is pretty much exact science (at least for planet Earth). On other planets you have different physics.
> Music is not exact science. It is art. You can't break the rules of physics, but you can break rules of art ever day again and again. Rules were made based on music that already existed.


Definitely. Music is art to me, expression, an extension of myself, there are no rules in how to make art, but there are rules on how to make "music".


----------



## beetzart

Yes, but there are physical laws to music if you include the different frequencies for each pitch. For major and minor modes to work there have to be strict parameters otherwise music would just be a sound and not a beautifully crafted symphony, say (that can take years to write).


----------



## beetzart

The laws of physics are the same throughout the Universe. You might be confusing certain measurements that are different on other planets like gravity and density with totally different laws which is not the case.


----------



## nikola

beetzart said:


> The laws of physics are the same throughout the Universe. You might be confusing certain measurements that are different on other planets like gravity and density with totally different laws which is not the case.


Ok, let's leave physics for some other forum, but even if there are universal rules about music, its magic is certainly not in theory books. Music is there for our minds, hearts and ears. There are many different ways to compose meaningful piece and many different ways to compose bad piece. Even with following all the rules you can have uninspired and bad piece of music. Music purpose is not mathematical equations. Its purpose is to bring us something much more.


----------



## Vasks

nikola said:


> There are many different ways to compose meaningful piece and many different ways to compose bad piece. Even with following all the rules you can have uninspired and bad piece of music.


Actually with all of the discussion that has transpired, the issue of bad music intrigues me the most. So my question to nikola or captain, or whoever that considers intuition the best guide to writing is this scenario: You just listened to a young composer's piece that is trying to emulate a Vangelis or a Yanni, but you find their piece bad. Can you tell that young composer what specifically makes it bad? If you can, are you not attaching criteria to what makes such stylistic pieces good vs bad. And if so, are you not then creating a set of rules?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Vasks said:


> Actually with all of the discussion that has transpired, the issue of bad music intrigues me the most. So my question to nikola or captain, or whoever that considers intuition the best guide to writing is this scenario: You just listened to a young composer's piece that is trying to emulate a Vangelis or a Yanni, but you find their piece bad. Can you tell that young composer what specifically makes it bad? If you can, are you not attaching criteria to what makes such stylistic pieces good vs bad. And if so, are you not then creating a set of rules?


I don't know Nikola's stance, but mine is to evaluate on two levels, first how I feel about a piece personally, and the second, what the piece offers in it's own right. I can see merit in just about anything, but that doesn't mean I enjoy everything.

Music is subjective, and enjoyment is subjective.


----------



## beetzart

Can you name an established composer from baroque to 1900+ who was musically illiterate? i'm struggling. Yet look at all the great masterpieces that were composed, it is practically never ending. And how could a composer write a symphony if they didn't understand music theory? Only by getting help of someone who was musically trained yet I don't think that ever occurred. Mastering music theory doesn't make any difference on the aesthetics of a composition, ie by not making it something that can reduce people to tears. It is thanks to music theory that we have such a wonderful catalogue of music to enjoy.


----------



## Captainnumber36

This argument is going in circles now. I respect and understand those who pursue music theory, but it has never been my method.


----------



## Captainnumber36

It's also called Music Theory, not Music Law as in the Laws of Physics.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I think it was custom back in the day that if you displayed musical talent, you were quickly put into lessons and learned music theory as a default. I think that is a big reason many of the greats of the past have been knowledgeable of music theory, and feel free to correct this assertion if it is incorrect.

However, several of my favorites did not follow the rules of what they were taught, and I believe they would have still been great had they not been formally instructed in music theory. I believe Debussy said, "I'm much more interested in my own ideas" or something to that notion.


----------



## beetzart

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's also called Music Theory, not Music Law as in the Laws of Physics.


Same difference. A theory describes known laws. Are you thinking of the term theory from a colloquial position?


----------



## Captainnumber36

beetzart said:


> Same difference. A theory describes known laws. Are you thinking of the term theory from a colloquial position?


No theory and law are separate in the scientific world. A theory is not proven, a law is a fact. Newton's laws of physics are facts of reality, pavlov's theory of classical conditioning is a theory that attempts to explain phenomenon, but it is not a fact of reality.


----------



## beetzart

Captainnumber36 said:


> No theory and law are separate in the scientific world. A theory is not proven, a law is a fact. Newton's laws of physics are facts of reality, pavlov's theory of classical conditioning is a theory.


That's incorrect. Theories are proven and they describe laws. So you think that Einstein's laws of relativity are not proven then or the Theory of Evolution? You've got you ideas of the meaning of theories muddled up.


----------



## Captainnumber36

A hypothesis is an educated guess, a theory is not! A theory is the most elevated idea in science with the most facts and evidence to back it up! Yes, there is a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. A scientific law is true statement that is meant to describe an action.


----------



## Captainnumber36

beetzart said:


> That's incorrect. Theories are proven and they describe laws. So you think that Einstein's laws of relativity are not proven then or the Theory of Evolution? You've got you ideas of the meaning of theories muddled up.


It's called the THEORY of relativity, not law of relativity. Evolution is still a theory, not a law.


----------



## beetzart

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's called the THEORY of relativity, not law of relativity. Evolution is still a theory, not a law.


Look, you are getting the everyday colloquial term of 'theory' muddled up with its scientific meaning.


----------



## beetzart

The theory of general relativity has been proven. Mass bends the fabric of space to cause gravity which is why light can be bent around the sun from distant stars during a solar eclipse.


----------



## Vasks

Captainnumber36 said:


> I can see merit in just about anything, but that doesn't mean I enjoy everything.
> 
> Music is subjective, and enjoyment is subjective.


Well, if you can't figure out what makes that young composer's music bad and you say you see merit in most everything, then there is no such thing as bad music. Right???


----------



## Captainnumber36

Watch this video:

[video]https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=theory+vs+law&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=8be17482422a4904a836c6c60a8dad5e&sp=-1&pq=theory+vs+law&sc=8-13&qs=n&sk=&cvid=8be17482422a4904a836c6c60a8dad5e&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dtheory%2bvs%2blaw%26form%3dIENT HT%26mkt%3den-us%26httpsmsn%3d1%26refig%3d8be17482422a4904a836c6 c60a8dad5e%26sp%3d-1%26pq%3dtheory%2bvs%2blaw%26sc%3d8-13%26qs%3dn%26sk%3d%26cvid%3d8be17482422a4904a836c 6c60a8dad5e&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=2E59C5650814426E80252E59C5650814426E8025&FORM=WRVORC[/video]


----------



## Vasks

Captainnumber36 said:


> I believe Debussy said, "I'm much more interested in my own ideas" or something to that notion.


Yes, he said that and much more along those lines, but as I pointed right here a few days ago, he first attended the Paris Conservatory from ages 11-22, so he learned it all and then created his own unique, revolutionary style.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Vasks said:


> Well, if you can't figure out what makes that young composer's music bad and you say you see merit in most everything, then there is no such thing as bad music. Right???


There is good and bad based upon my own personal subjective taste. There is good and bad based upon a set criteria, and thus, composers wanting to fit into the rules of classical music theory must undergo the criticism that this board gives. Criteria can be developed into programs which are founded on that theory to teach music, and students interested in learning a specific type of program that follows a particular set of rules can do so.

However, those who can see merit beyond their own personal tastes are in a better place to understand the music, I believe. And it's not like I don't know the basics of music theory, for I do. I COULD write out my music if I really tried.


----------



## KenOC

beetzart said:


> The theory of general relativity has been proven. Mass bends the fabric of space to cause gravity which is why light can be bent around the sun from distant stars during a solar eclipse.


I don't believe this is correct. It has been shown to make some accurate predictions and seems to have explanatory power. But like all theories, it is awaiting that one observation that contradicts it.

In science, there are no "laws," only theories awaiting disproof.


----------



## Captainnumber36

A theory on it's own has undergone several hypothesis that have been proven and it is generally useful in understanding and explaining a phenomenon.

A law is a fact, a theory of a law attempts to explain HOW the law works the way it does.

You were confusing theories that stand on their own and theories that attempt to explain a law.


----------



## Captainnumber36

KenOC said:


> I don't believe this is correct. It has been shown to make some accurate predictions and seems to have explanatory power. But like all theories, it is awaiting that one observation that contradicts it.
> 
> In science, there are no "laws," only theories awaiting disproof.


No, Newton's laws of motion are in fact laws.


----------



## beetzart

KenOC said:


> I don't believe this is correct. It has been shown to make some accurate predictions and seems to have explanatory power. But like all theories, it is awaiting that one observation that contradicts it.
> 
> In science, there are no "laws," only theories awaiting disproof.


Yes, sorry, you are quite right. Nothing in science can ever be 100% even things like the moon orbiting the earth. I think I am right in saying that only mathematical proofs are 100% watertight.


----------



## Vasks

Captainnumber36 said:


> There is good and bad based upon my own personal subjective taste. There is good and bad based upon a set criteria, and thus, composers wanting to fit into the rules of classical music theory must undergo the criticism that this board gives. Criteria can be developed into programs which are founded on that theory to teach music, and students interested in learning a specific type of program that follows a particular set of rules can do so.
> 
> However, those who can see merit beyond their own personal tastes are in a better place to understand the music, I believe. And it's not like I don't know the basics of music theory, for I do. I COULD write out my music if I really tried.


You are either completely missing or avoiding my premise. If you believe that the young composer emulating a Yanni/Vangelis type of style has written what YOU THINK is bad, can you tell him/her why it is bad? If you can't, then is it bad at all? If you can, then does not that mean one can apply criteria (rules) as to why something in that style is bad. Your personal taste can not explain to that young composer what he/she needs to do to make their work better.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Vasks said:


> You are either completely missing or avoiding my premise. If you believe that the young composer emulating a Yanni/Vangelis type of style has written what YOU THINK is bad, can you tell him/her why it is bad? If you can't, then is it bad at all? If you can, then does not that mean one can apply criteria (rules) as to why something in that style is bad. Your personal taste can not explain to that young composer what he/she needs to do to make their work better.


I can articulate what it is I do not find enjoyable about the work. It is only bad by my standard of evaluation, but that doesn't mean it isn't good by a different standard of evaluation, which I have the capacity to see and articulate as well.

If someone is attempting to mimic a particular style, then yes, there are rules to follow and we know what those are and how to assess and how to guide a young composer.

A composer such as myself, that isn't trying to fit neatly into any one genre requires a different set of ears and evaluation.


----------



## KenOC

Captainnumber36 said:


> No, Newton's laws of motion are in fact laws.


No, they are now seen as a special case within the more encompassing general theory of relativity. "However, Newton's laws (combined with universal gravitation and classical electrodynamics) are inappropriate for use in certain circumstances, most notably at very small scales, very high speeds (in special relativity, the Lorentz factor must be included in the expression for momentum along with the rest mass and velocity) or very strong gravitational fields. Therefore, the laws cannot be used to explain phenomena such as conduction of electricity in a semiconductor, optical properties of substances, errors in non-relativistically corrected GPS systems and superconductivity. Explanation of these phenomena requires more sophisticated physical theories, including general relativity and quantum field theory."

So they are, in fact, special cases within a broader theory, which itself is by no means "proven."

There is, however, another view: "By contrast, a scientific law is a statement that has repeatedly been found to be true, but scientists have no way of explaining the phenomenon. For example, Newton's Third Law, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction," is a statement that we know to be true in our universe, but cannot be explained with hard evidence, only with intuition."

That would make Newton's statements "laws," but only because they can't be explained.


----------



## Captainnumber36

KenOC said:


> No, they are now seen as a special case within the more encompassing general theory of relativity. "However, Newton's laws (combined with universal gravitation and classical electrodynamics) are inappropriate for use in certain circumstances, most notably at very small scales, very high speeds (in special relativity, the Lorentz factor must be included in the expression for momentum along with the rest mass and velocity) or very strong gravitational fields. Therefore, the laws cannot be used to explain phenomena such as conduction of electricity in a semiconductor, optical properties of substances, errors in non-relativistically corrected GPS systems and superconductivity. Explanation of these phenomena requires more sophisticated physical theories, including general relativity and quantum field theory."So they are, in fact, special cases within a broader theory, which itself is by no means "proven."


If my memory of HS physics serves me right, Newton's laws operate in a perfect reality of some sorts.

There is definitely a difference between the term Law and Theory. Mathematical Equations that are proven within a certain environment are laws, we have theories to explain how they happen. We also have theories that stand on their own that don't explain laws.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Here is Debussy's quote:

Debussy, on his music: "I am sure the Institute would not approve, for, naturally it regards the path which it ordains as the only right one. But there is no help for it! I am too enamoured of my freedom, too fond of my own ideas." and his were brilliant, revolutionary ideas.


----------



## nikola

Vasks said:


> Actually with all of the discussion that has transpired, the issue of bad music intrigues me the most. So my question to nikola or captain, or whoever that considers intuition the best guide to writing is this scenario: You just listened to a young composer's piece that is trying to emulate a Vangelis or a Yanni, but you find their piece bad. Can you tell that young composer what specifically makes it bad? If you can, are you not attaching criteria to what makes such stylistic pieces good vs bad. And if so, are you not then creating a set of rules?


Bernstein said for Hovhanness's piece - "'filthy ghetto music.''
I would say to this guy - "you can't polish a turd".

Well, Bernstein didn't have you to teach him how to criticise music. He could learn a lot from you.


----------



## Vasks

Two points then I'm done



Captainnumber36 said:


> If someone is attempting to mimic a particular style, then yes, there are rules to follow and we know what those are and how to assess and how to guide a young composer.


So then there are criteria/rules no matter the style. That's a fact.



Captainnumber36 said:


> A composer such as myself, that isn't trying to fit neatly into any one genre requires a different set of ears and evaluation.


Your style is not radical. It's not unique. You are using basic chords and writing simple melodies. So I'm not convinced it needs a special set of ears to evaluate it. But I think you have previously stated that except for one or two people here at TC, you're not interested in getting critiques. Fair enough, but I am merely trying to point out that to evaluate anything means there are rules for what to do right and what to do wrong. Nikola used the word "magical" recently. Yes, music can seem magical, but it can be analyzed to find what makes it tick, and once you've done that you've discovered the theory behind it, and once you get the theory behind it that, the theory can be applied to all others that pieces that follow in its footsteps, and then you can identify the good or bad qualities.


----------



## Vasks

nikola said:


> Bernstein said for Hovhanness's piece - "'filthy ghetto music.''
> I would say to this guy - "you can't polish a turd".
> 
> Well, Bernstein didn't have you to teach him how to criticise music. He could learn a lot from you.


You have not addressed my scenario at all. Can you?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Vasks said:


> Two points then I'm done
> 
> So then there are criteria/rules no matter the style. That's a fact.
> 
> Your style is not radical. It's not unique. You are using basic chords and writing simple melodies. So I'm not convinced it needs a special set of ears to evaluate it. But I think you have previously stated that except for one or two people here at TC, you're not interested in getting critiques. Fair enough, but I am merely trying to point out that to evaluate anything means there are rules for what to do right and what to do wrong. Nikola used the word "magical" recently. Yes, music can seem magical, but it can be analyzed to find what makes it tick, and once you've done that you've discovered the theory behind it, and once you get the theory behind it that, the theory can be applied to all others that pieces that follow in its footsteps, and then you can identify the good or bad qualities.


And those that are attempting to do something unique have no theoretical framework by which to assess it from, and requires new rules and standards to apply it.

I'm combining pop, classical, new age, jazz & funk into my music that is distinctly my own. It has the simple melodies one can hum back of pop, it has structures (often enough) that emulate the pop form, it has elements of classical a lot of the times in melodic themes utilized (but in a simpler way), it has the relaxed quality new age brings, it has chords found in jazz (often), and it often has syncopated rhythms often found in funk.

I think that's pretty darn unique!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Vasks said:


> Two points then I'm done
> 
> So then there are criteria/rules no matter the style. That's a fact.


There are rules to follow a style and fit into it, if you are not attempting to fit neatly into any one style, then there must be a new set of rules/theories by which to judge it from.


----------



## Torkelburger

Captainnumber36 said:


> And those that are attempting to do something unique have no theoretical framework by which to assess it from, and requires new rules and standards to apply it.
> 
> I'm combining pop, classical, new age, jazz & funk into my music that is distinctly my own. It has the simple melodies one can hum back of pop, it has structures (often enough) that emulate the pop form, it has elements of classical a lot of the times in melodic themes utilized (but in a simpler way), it has the relaxed quality new age brings, it has chords found in jazz (often), and it often has syncopated rhythms often found in funk.
> 
> I think that's pretty darn unique!


Keep at it, but FYI--there are composers who already do this. It's common in minimalist circles. Michael Torke has made a very successful career of mixing pop/classical/jazz/funk/new age since 1984. Don't know if you've ever heard of him (not sure if you'll like him as he studied composition at Yale). Here's a piece you might like:


----------



## Captainnumber36

Torkelburger said:


> Keep at it, but FYI--there are composers who already do this. It's common in minimalist circles. Michael Torke has made a very successful career of mixing pop/classical/jazz/funk/new age since 1984. Don't know if you've ever heard of him (not sure if you'll like him as he studied composition at Yale). Here's a piece you might like:


I am enjoying this and see how it compares to my music! I think I offer a fresh spin on it compared to this composer, certainly, what genre is he considered to be?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Torkelburger said:


> Keep at it, but FYI--there are composers who already do this. It's common in minimalist circles. Michael Torke has made a very successful career of mixing pop/classical/jazz/funk/new age since 1984. Don't know if you've ever heard of him (not sure if you'll like him as he studied composition at Yale). Here's a piece you might like:


I'm certainly not against those who use theory, at all, I'm just saying it's not the only way.


----------



## Captainnumber36

This piece is kind of too long though, it goes on and on and on, not really enjoying the development of it.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I also think my work is a bit more eccentric than the piece you showed.


----------



## Torkelburger

Captainnumber36 said:


> I am enjoying this and see how it compares to my music! I think I offer a fresh spin on it compared to this composer, certainly, what genre is he considered to be?


Considered to be minimalism


----------



## KenOC

Torke's best-known piece is probably _Javelin_, written for the 1996 Summer Olympic games in Atlanta. I've never thought of his music as "minimalism."


----------



## Vasks

Torke has had clear minimalistic elements in his pieces, but no, he's not a bonafide Minimalist. I have no idea what he's up to these days. For me his best piece was the breakout piece: "Ecstatic Orange"


----------



## KenOC

Vasks said:


> Torke has had clear minimalistic elements in his pieces, but no, he's not a bonafide Minimalist. I have no idea what he's up to these days. For me his best piece was the breakout piece: "Ecstatic Orange"


I checked on YT and there are several recent works for various ensembles. They struck me as pleasant listening but maybe without the interest of some of his earlier works.


----------



## Torkelburger

To continue with my derail--

I like "Javelin" but was wanting to show more pop/jazz/funk. Yes, my favorite piece is also "Ecstatic Orange", of which I own the score. Speaking of,...it utilizes funk rhythms throughout. (With a few sustained notes here and there) *All* of the rhythms in the piece are broken down into divisions of the beat into sixteenth note rhythms: 4 sixteenths, dotted eighth-sixteenth, sixteenth-dotted eighth, eighth and two sixteenths, two sixteenths and an eighth, sixteenth-eighth rest-sixteenth, etc. etc. etc. These rhythms are placed on top of each other and beside each other, giving this great, syncopated feel throughout. And it is based on a very ecstatic pitch class: E G# A B D. Really neat piece.


----------



## Vasks

KenOC said:


> I checked on YT and there are several recent works for various ensembles. They struck me as pleasant listening but maybe without the interest of some of his earlier works.


My guess is that his quick early huge fame forced him to crank out a lot of music to satisfy numerous commissions in a short amount of time, which in turn robbed him of the ability to give considerable thought to each work. His style by the early 90's (which is when I stopped following him) became as you said more "pleasant" rather than individualistic. And while my guess could be completely wrong, I feel sorry for him as he could've been a real contender if he'd had more time to grow steadily.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> I must admit that I never read before anything that makes less sense. Rules didn't exist before music. People were making music... rules came after that. Folk music, blues, jazz, etc. Most of those styles came first... rules for their music came after. If you don't believe look once again the video posted by czech guy.
> If my music is based on theory that means that I don't have to learn it.. lol.. you're probably not aware that what you said right now doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
> Theory is not music. It never will be. It'a s tool for people like you.


Forget rules, I already said music theory is way more than that. A comparison to science has been made. Music theory is based on principles, which existed before music has been composed. Just like gravity existed on Earth since the before humans and is only discovered afterwards. So is music theory (call it rudiments instead of theory, that is the name of what I actually learned). Gravity and music rudiments exist independently of humans and compositions. I agree our human knowledge of music theory has expanded over time. Especially now it is difficult to compose anything to expand the known musical boundaries, and definitely not by going by whim and feeling.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Forget rules, I already said music theory is way more than that. A comparison to science has been made. Music theory is based on principles, which existed before music has been composed. Just like gravity existed on Earth since the before humans and is only discovered afterwards. So is music theory (call it rudiments instead of theory, that is the name of what I actually learned). Gravity and music rudiments exist independently of humans and compositions. I agree our human knowledge of music theory has expanded over time. Especially now it is difficult to compose anything to expand the known musical boundaries, and definitely not by going by whim and feeling.


I disagree.

And we will continue to talk in circles, so lets just end it with you believe in the merits of music theory as THE way to composition, and I believe it it but A way.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Art to me is expression, there are no rules in how to express yourself, it has to come from within and those that take the time to practice expressing themselves (in any art form) become great at developing a real individualistic voice.

Those that spend time learning theory become great at replicating the greats, and I do feel it often times is a barrier.

The greats in the past that knew theory I don't believe took it very seriously or to heart evidenced by Debussy's quote listed above.

They were more concerned with expression, which is the ultimate goal of art to me, and art with a highly developed individualistic voice is what gets me going.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I actually think Mozart's ability to compose perfectly in one sitting is because he used a lot of the same ideas over and over again. I actually think he's kind of a boring composer, he was more of a puppet than an artist.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> I disagree.
> 
> And we will continue to talk in circles, so lets just end it with you believe in the merits of music theory as THE way to composition, and I believe it it but A way.


I'm just stating a fact on musical principles themselves. It is possible to compose without the knowledge, but what you do will be limited. You wouldn't know unless you opened yourself up to that fact. That's just how it is.

BtW, Music theory/rudiments is not a set of rules.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm just stating a fact on musical principles themselves. It is possible to compose without the knowledge, but what you do will be limited. You wouldn't know unless you opened yourself up to that fact. That's just how it is.
> 
> BtW, Music theory/rudiments is not a set of rules.


I'll continue to follow in Debussy's spirit of going against the grain the "proper" way to go about it. I think most people that focus on theory are limited in developing their inner voice, MOST of the time.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Emotions are the tools needed for art and you need the technique of your desired craft to express what you want in the way you want. Emotions are more unique and individualized, and the more introspective you become, the more aware you are of your inner self, and the better you are capable of expressing yourself. Practicing expressing yourself in some art form is also important, but following set rules of what others of the medium used in the past doesn't help develop your inner voice.

Getting inspired by your favorite artists and taking that inspiration and not mimicking it, but letting it settle within you is the way to grow in whatever art form it is you are looking at.

The more unique you are as a person, the more unique your art will be as well.

Studying old methods only gets you good at mimicking the past.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> Emotions are the tools needed for art and you need the technique of your desired craft to express what you want in the way you want. Emotions are more unique and individualized, and the more introspective you become, the more aware you are of your inner self, and the better you are capable of expressing yourself. Practicing expressing yourself in some art form is also important, but following set rules of what others of the medium used in the past doesn't help develop your inner voice.
> 
> Getting inspired by your favorite artists and taking that inspiration and not mimicking it, but letting it settle within you is the way to grow in whatever art form it is you are looking at.
> 
> The more unique you are as a person, the more unique your art will be as well.
> 
> Studying old methods only gets you good at mimicking the past.


Studying old methods can give you ideas to come up with a new one. Not studying old methods will more likely end up in doing something similar, but not as good.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Studying old methods can give you ideas to come up with a new one. Not studying old methods will more likely end up in doing something similar, but not as good.


That similar to what I'm saying, I study works that inspire me by listening to them in different ways and from different perspectives. For example, when I post a song or piece on facebook, and then see someone get on Facebook, I listen to the song I posted in how I think they would understand it and comprehend it. I listen from all sorts of angles, that is how I study.

Then when I feel inspired, I go play and let those ideas flow into me through composing and/or jamming something with that inspiration without the intention to mimic, but to feel how I understand those inspired ideas in my own way.

To be an artist, one must be introspective and quite self aware.


----------



## Captainnumber36

To be a musician, one must understand theory and rules.


----------



## nikola

Captainnumber36 said:


> To be a musician, one must understand theory and rules.


I would say, if you want to compose in certain styles, it is pretty much essential for you to learn some rules. I guess it would be a hard for someone young and clueless to find chords that are most commonly used in jazz without someone telling him which chords mostly work and are used. 
If you want to compose whatever the hell you want to compose, you don't need any rules. Some people are composing music for some classical music competitions or something like that and I feel sorry for them. It's like you must do some homework for somebody else. It's like being in a school. It's not music, not creativity and not art - it's fulfilling some mindless set of rules.


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola said:


> I would say, if you want to compose in certain styles, it is pretty much essential for you to learn some rules. I guess it would be a hard for someone young and clueless to find chords that are most commonly used in jazz without someone telling him which chords mostly work and are used.
> If you want to compose whatever the hell you want to compose, you don't need any rules. Some people are composing music for some classical music competitions or something like that and I feel sorry for them. It's like you must do some homework for somebody else. It's like being in a school. It's not music, not creativity and not art - it's fulfilling some mindless set of rules.


Ya, if you are learning a style, following a theory of set rules, you are a musician. If you are learning to express yourself, you are an artist. Just a distinction I'm making in this thread.


----------



## Captainnumber36

When art is so personal in it's expression and you relate to it, it becomes something very magical. Stop trying to mimic and start trying to express guys! 

Create your own theory!


----------



## beetzart

nikola said:


> I would say, if you want to compose in certain styles, it is pretty much essential for you to learn some rules. I guess it would be a hard for someone young and clueless to find chords that are most commonly used in jazz without someone telling him which chords mostly work and are used.
> If you want to compose whatever the hell you want to compose, you don't need any rules. Some people are composing music for some classical music competitions or something like that and I feel sorry for them. It's like you must do some homework for somebody else. It's like being in a school. It's not music, not creativity and not art - it's fulfilling some mindless set of rules.


Wouldn't you like someone to write down your compositions and upload them to IMSLP? Then they would be saved for posterity at least in written format.


----------



## beetzart

Nikola, I have just listened to your short piece Black Rose again and it is very nice and you create a certain mood but it follows all the basic rules of tonal music theory. Have you managed to compose something yet that is atonal and diverts all the rules of music theory?


----------



## nikola

If someone will be willing one day to write those down I will let them 
Yes, 'Black Rose' is tonal piece, but that was my point. I composed it without knowing any rules. I'm not sure are there any really atonal (dissonant) piece by me, but this one is somehow weird I guess. It was one of the first pieces and I believe it could be improved. I was still pretty much bad at playing back then and 9it was played on old synth for kids:





Take in consideration that I am 36 years old right now and I was 34 when I started for the first time to play (compose) and this piece is one of the first. Maybe it is somehow atonal... maybe it isn't. I don't know... I only know that I liked the way it sounded.

There are also some pieces that I would like to improve with another melody on top of them... like subtle strings arrangements or something like that.

You can hear in almost every of my piece that atmosphere/mood are very important parts of the music to me. I want music to give me an insight into different kinds of feelings, emotions, etc. I don't like the music without idea or without the need to tell me anything at all.


----------



## beetzart

Have you not thought of developing your ideas into elaborate movements? This is where things get interesting. Take a Chopin nocturne say the famous one in E flat Op. 9 No. 2 I think it is. The opening motif is very simple yet every time Chopin returns to it he decorates it with ornaments. This is to stop it sounding stale and actually the whole piece is full of acciaccaturas, appoggiatura, mordents, turns, and trills lighting up the simple melodic line. He also has nice flurries with semiquiavers and demisemiquavers that could almost be played ad lib. The nocturne eventually reaches a colourful cadenza type passage to close the piece. And also I should mention the left hand part. This just nicely bounces along metronomically. Yet what I am getting at is that Chopin is using a whole toolbox of things to create a short but very interesting and beautiful piece of music.


----------



## nikola

That's one of the most popular pieces by Chopin and I really love it. It's quite simple piece, yet I see what you're talking about about building the same thing into different variations, athough his LH playing I wouldn't say changes drastically through the piece. For sure, Chopin was way more advanced composer and piano player than I will ever be 
My pieces are pretty much straight-forward, relying on main melodic idea and its development. I see most of my pieces more as sketches than completely finished (ready to sell) music. I'm sure that experienced musican could polish those to sound great. What is the most important to me is their main idea and how they work on their own even without much improvement that could be certainly done to some of those with more advanced LH playing, some nice arrangements, etc. 
There is one piece I composed where its melody started with only single tones and those same melody ended that I actually turned those tones into chords. So, it sounded almost the same, yet different. I thought at that moment that's how it should be done. So, it is somehow the same melody, but not exactly the same.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> I would say, if you want to compose in certain styles, it is pretty much essential for you to learn some rules. I guess it would be a hard for someone young and clueless to find chords that are most commonly used in jazz without someone telling him which chords mostly work and are used.
> If you want to compose whatever the hell you want to compose, you don't need any rules. Some people are composing music for some classical music competitions or something like that and I feel sorry for them. It's like you must do some homework for somebody else. It's like being in a school. It's not music, not creativity and not art - it's fulfilling some mindless set of rules.


I think we're getting somewhere. I agree with this completely



Captainnumber36 said:


> When art is so personal in it's expression and you relate to it, it becomes something very magical. Stop trying to mimic and start trying to express guys!
> 
> *Create your own theory*!


I think Beetzart was right, the word theory is not the same as a hypothesis. I just read Music Theory is the study of practices and *possibilities* in music. You can't create your own theory, brcause music theory/rudiments don't chsnge. You can create new patterns, rules, etc. though


----------



## Phil loves classical

Basically by including Cage as Classical, it has included really all possibilities. Cage doesn't even use bars in his notation, if you look at his written music, there are just arbitrary time divisions between notes, since he wrote indeterminate music which is based on the toally random. Postmodern is a reaction against all rules in music. Ferneyhough changes the time signature and key signature arbitrarily, and there is no real connecting melody or theme.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> Basically by including Cage as Classical, it has included really all possibilities. Cage doesn't even use bars in his notation, if you look at his written music, there are just arbitrary time divisions between notes, since he wrote indeterminate music which is based on the toally random. Postmodern is a reaction against all rules in music. Ferneyhough changes the time signature and key signature arbitrarily, and there is no real connecting melody or theme.


And when you look at his written music for 4'33 things are getting even more interesting


----------



## nikola

I was listening for a few seconds Seven2 by Cage right now and it reminded me of Badalamenti's piece from the same year (or it was composed even year earlier):


----------



## Phil loves classical

One composer who really pushed against the rules was Berlioz. He would seem to follow the style and rules of proper German music at the time but then, within the same piece he deviated from the rules, creating shock. Some experts, including the ultra-Modern Stravinsky 100 years later, thought he took such liberties in harmony it was preposterous. But in his music he did follow the same deviations somewhat consistently, so it appeared he knew what he was doing, to some. Some still don't think he knew what he was doing.


----------



## nikola

He certainly knew that we will not know did he know what he was doing :lol:

It would be interesting if people here would recommend classical music to me based on my music. I mean, what would you guess that I would like based on my music... so I could discover something new. But don't be rude and post something acknowledgedly truly awful 
It doesn't need to be necessarily classical music.


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola said:


> He certainly knew that we will not know did he know what he was doing :lol:
> 
> It would be interesting if people here would recommend classical music to me based on my music. I mean, what would you guess that I would like based on my music... so I could discover something new. But don't be rude and post something acknowledgedly truly awful
> It doesn't need to be necessarily classical music.


You kind of take the moods of Chopin (Nocturnes), Debussy & Ravel, add the occasional jazz chord, with poppy melodies that sink into your brain and get stuck in there (they are catchy, not unlike mine).

I could see your music liken to Danny Elfman's music in Tim Burton movies, there is one piano piece in the Corpse Bride that comes to mind, here it is:


----------



## nikola

Captainnumber36 said:


> You kind of take the moods of Chopin (Nocturnes), Debussy & Ravel, add the occasional jazz chord, with poppy melodies that sink into your brain and get stuck in there (they are catchy, not unlike mine).
> 
> I could see your music liken to Danny Elfman's music in Tim Burton movies, there is one piano piece in the Corpse Bride that comes to mind, here it is:


Thank you for such nice description. I don't think that anyone else will describe my music like that again 
Yes, I like Danny Elfman. He has recognizable, dreamy and unique sound. 
This is also his theme and it has always been one of my most favorite themes. It's even ringtone for my mobile phone. Since I was kid this theme made me feel really excited for some reason. And that part when female vocal starts really excites me in some strange way. He said so much in so little time with that piece.






He also made great themes and soundtracks for Batman, Edward Scissorhands etc. He also composed great Simpsons theme. He is really talented musician and I like his quirky and dark, yet somehow crazy music. Such uniqueness and personality in music is not something someone can teach you. He is to me personally much better than Zimmer for example.


----------

