# More (Not) Cheap Bombasticism



## teknoaxe

Appropriately Titled "Kate and Beth Escape From London". This one clocks in at a little more than 9:30. I keep it interesting though, with different sections telling different parts of the story. Big ups to Katers17 and Beth.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Ehh. After having listened to Debussy's Song Cycle of Baudelaire Poems just this morning, this certainly sounds bombastic, and there's really no case where bombast isn't cheap. Take, for instance, something like La Mer. It's transcendental, but never once does it resort to bombast. It's all about the use of color, and melody, which you don't seem to have mastered yet.


----------



## teknoaxe

MJTTOMB said:


> Ehh. After having listened to Debussy's Song Cycle of Baudelaire Poems just this morning, this certainly sounds bombastic, and there's really no case where bombast isn't cheap. Take, for instance, something like La Mer. It's transcendental, but never once does it resort to bombast. It's all about the use of color, and melody, which you don't seem to have mastered yet.


So I gotta ask, though. Did you hear the story in it all?


----------



## MJTTOMB

I wasn't listening for the story, I was listening for the music.


----------



## teknoaxe

MJTTOMB said:


> I wasn't listening for the story, I was listening for the music.


Llllllaaaaaaaaaammmmeee!

Hey, is there anyone here that will give my track an honest constructive critique and not throw dead composers at it?


----------



## Aramis

What is bombasticism? For me it is when composer uses large orchestral forces in order to create monumental music. What you are doing here is making quasi-orchestral music: there is sound of string ensamble, choir and yet the complexity of whole thing is not even chamber-like. You are trying to create illusion of bombasticism, but don't you think that classical people are too smart to buy such pastiche? 

This is not even classical. It's typical soundtrack music trying to sound like symphonic music - in vain.


----------



## teknoaxe

Aramis said:


> What is bombasticism? For me it is when composer uses large orchestral forces in order to create monumental music. What you are doing here is making quasi-orchestral music: there is sound of string ensamble, choir and yet the complexity of whole thing is not even chamber-like. You are trying to create illusion of bombasticism, but don't you think that classical people are too smart to buy such pastiche?
> 
> This is not even classical. It's typical soundtrack music trying to sound like symphonic music - in vain.


Hmmm....I may be pitching my stuff at the wrong crowd then. I take it you probably didn't like the "Under Cover of the Mist" section, when the drumset came in.

I think you people operate under too many rules, honestly.


----------



## Aramis

> I think you people operate under too many rules, honestly.


Poor excuse - you want to see yourself as some neo-Beethoven making great music against regressive, old-fashioned rules? I have bad news for you: you are not anyone like that.


----------



## teknoaxe

Aramis said:


> Poor excuse - you want to see yourself as some neo-Beethoven making great music against regressive, old-fashioned rules? I have bad news for you: you are not anyone like that.


Another dead composer.


----------



## Aramis

> Another dead composer.


Not entirely true as well, but I'm glad that the way you see yourself is closer to reality than I thought.


----------



## Earthling

This reminds me of numerous discussions I've seen in writing workshops back in my days at university. There would be people who would sign up for the course who wanted to write poetry, but it wasn't particularly original. When asked if they actually read other poets (old as well as contemporary) they would reply "no" and not only that, but expressed little or no interest in such a thing. This struck me as odd-- the best way one could possibly learn to write is to _read, read, read, read, _and _read _more-- they are the real teachers. If you aren't an avid reader of poetry, you won't be able to write any worthwhile poetry. In more extreme and absurd examples, I'd see a poem written in a traditional meter and rhyme, even with an occasional "thou" -- and yet had never read one word of Blake or a single modern poet. There might be the occasional short Dickinson poem that they liked, but _they didn't read poetry_. In reality, these individuals had no interest in poetry at all-- they were interested in the _idea _of poetry.


----------



## teknoaxe

Earthling said:


> This reminds me of numerous discussions I've seen in writing workshops back in my days at university. There would be people who would sign up for the course who wanted to write poetry, but it wasn't particularly original. When asked if they actually read other poets (old as well as contemporary) they would reply "no" and not only that, but expressed little or no interest in such a thing. This struck me as odd-- the best way one could possibly learn to write is to _read, read, read, read, _and _read _more-- they are the real teachers. If you aren't an avid reader of poetry, you won't be able to write any worthwhile poetry. In more extreme and absurd examples, I'd see a poem written in a traditional meter and rhyme, even with an occasional "thou" -- and yet had never read one word of Blake or a single modern poet. There might be the occasional short Dickinson poem that they liked, but _they didn't read poetry_. In reality, these individuals had no interest in poetry at all-- they were interested in the _idea _of poetry.


Dude, I listen a lot of Classical and Symphonic music, which is why I've taken an interest in composing stuff for symphony. So your poem example doesn't work at all. But, once again, no one has come up with any sort of real critique of my stuff. You've just thrown out vague examples of what my stuff is not like. I'm not like Debussy. Really? Because I didn't have Debussy in mind when composing this.

Do you want to know how I made the fast strings sound not .midi like in "The Rush?" I layered them in octaves. That's what composers do in such situations and I learned that by listening to orchestral and classical music and analyzing why that is. So it's not so obvious as you would like to believe.


----------



## Aramis

> But, once again, no one has come up with any sort of real critique of my stuff. You've just thrown out vague examples of what my stuff is not like.


I didn't. I pointed out why I consider your music poor - because it pretends to be symphonic music (it uses ensamble samples) but it doesn't use full orchestral forces. It doesn't mean that I'm saying "247924772 YEARS AGO THERE WOULD BE CLARINETS/BASSONS/WHATEVER!!!!". If that's how you understood me then you are very wrong.

What I meant was that you don't write for orchestras and choirs if you are not capeble of using it's real potential of advanced harmony and counterpoint. Not because in historical classical music there are no works written for 1000 violins ensamble and choir with both of them performing one voice, but because it is simply stupid and silly idea. It's like writing book longer than War and Peace with two words only.


----------



## teknoaxe

Aramis said:


> What I meant was that you don't write for orchestras and choirs if you are not capeble of using it's real potential of advanced harmony and counterpoint. Not because in historical classical music there are no works written for 1000 violins ensamble and choir with both of them performing one voice, but because it is simply stupid and silly idea. It's like writing book longer than War and Peace with two words only.


Wait. Did you actually listen to this piece? Because it's starting to sound like you didn't.


----------



## emiellucifuge

teknoaxe said:


> Hmmm....I may be pitching my stuff at the wrong crowd then. I take it you probably didn't like the "Under Cover of the Mist" section, when the drumset came in.
> 
> I think you people operate under too many rules, honestly.


There are no rules, that is why it is so hard to succeed.


----------



## teknoaxe

emiellucifuge said:


> There are no rules, that is why it is so hard to succeed.


See, outside of this place, there are actually people who LIKE my stuff.


----------



## Aramis

> Wait. Did you actually listen to this piece? Because it's starting to sound like you didn't.


I did. I know that there are more than two "voices" etc, but it was only metaphore, not too exaggerated for sure.


----------



## teknoaxe

Aramis said:


> What I meant was that you don't write for orchestras and choirs if you are not capeble of using it's real potential of advanced harmony and counterpoint.


I'm reminded of the backlash against 80s metal blistering virtuosity, in the form of Seattle-based music. You may blister up and down that fretboard, and recite to me all the scales and modes you used to make that technical marvel. But if the song doesn't rock, then you suck.

In other words, maybe one day I'll master your advanced harmony and counterpart. This is what...my eighth real symphony I've composed?...One day I will master all that, but not before I master how to make symphonic music that people like. And so far, people like my stuff. I will write for symphonic music all I like because I can, not because I fulfill some qualification on your part.

Prepare for my next work.


----------



## emiellucifuge

See here is your problem. you write symphonic music that 'rocks', and your aim is for people to like it. This suggests you have little artistic integrity.
Also, you aim to continu writing in the Symphonic genre yet you show no intention of further learning the arts involved in composition. In fact you claim to have reached 8 entire symphonies without, it seems, ever bothering to learn. 
9 is the number of symphonies Beethoven wrote in his entire life. You are most likely still young and have written 8, I can hardly believe they are all masterpieces.
Finally, I fail to see how this a Symphony, and therefore do not believe it qualifies for the 'symphonic' category.


----------



## Aramis

> and your aim is for people to like it


And I doubt they really do. He probably shows it to his friends and they say "that's cool - I like it, by the way, you wanna hang out tonight?". As you see, people here (who actually know thing or two about music) are not too enthusiastic about your work and they are totally objective.

We point you out what makes your music not-so-good and you are only making poor excuses for every argument instead of trying to learn something.

Face the truth: you piece is not rich and sophisticated (it's poorly written), it doesn't rock, all people that claim to like your piece don't really mean it and don't become devoted listeners after they hear it; you will never have any devoted listeners and you will never achieve anything if you won't change your ways of thinking about your work.


----------



## teknoaxe

Aramis said:


> And I doubt they really do. He probably shows it to his friends and they say "that's cool - I like it, by the way, you wanna hang out tonight?". As you see, people here (who actually know thing or two about music) are not too enthusiastic about your work and they are totally objective.
> 
> We point you out what makes your music not-so-good and you are only making poor excuses for every argument instead of trying to learn something.
> 
> Face the truth: you piece is not rich and sophisticated (it's poorly written), it doesn't rock, all people that claim to like your piece don't really mean it and don't become devoted listeners after they hear it; you will never have any devoted listeners and you will never achieve anything if you won't change your ways of thinking about your work.


Give it time, man. I've been doing this for four months. I think I've covered a lot of ground in that time-frame.


----------



## teknoaxe

emiellucifuge said:


> See here is your problem. you write symphonic music that 'rocks', and your aim is for people to like it. This suggests you have little artistic integrity.
> Also, you aim to continu writing in the Symphonic genre yet you show no intention of further learning the arts involved in composition. In fact you claim to have reached 8 entire symphonies without, it seems, ever bothering to learn.
> 9 is the number of symphonies Beethoven wrote in his entire life. You are most likely still young and have written 8, I can hardly believe they are all masterpieces.
> Finally, I fail to see how this a Symphony, and therefore do not believe it qualifies for the 'symphonic' category.


Which is kind of why I lamented earlier that I may be throwing my music at the wrong crowd. *shrug* I like it. I'm proud of it. I listen to it. I think it exactly serves its purpose in telling the story I wanted to tell.


----------



## Rasa

Real criticism then

Form:

This is not a symphony, because it's not in symphonic form. There is no sonata form in the first movement with themes and developements. The other bits don't have structure aswell. It's the formal equivalent of Iwritingamphraselongitsbecauseicouldn'tofanythingthinkbesides

Try to study the forms of the old composers: sonata form, lied form, rondo form. applying these forms will give your pieces direction


Melodies

That being said, there are barely any themes, just random noises. A lot of background noise.
A lot of parts are extremely repetitive

Composing means exactly that: exposing thematic materials and then using it to create a structure in which each next step is inevitable.

Try to study the melodies of the old composers. See which parts they use in the developements of melodies. This will make your piece coherent and melodic bits won't just drop out of nowhere.

Harmony:

You try to write dissonant harmonies to create atmosphere, but instead of athmosphere you end up with odd sounding, and incoherent harmonies that don't indicate any real harmonic language from your part

The harmonic rythm is also very repetitive, often staying in the same chord for hours.

The choral part has 2 nice chords, dissonant and all but then blatantly just go to a non dissonant chord like an elephant in a china shop.

Try to study the harmony and harmonic rythm of the old composers. They will give you insight in the use of dissonance, voice leading and how harmonic rythm will make pieces less random.



> Do you want to know how I made the fast strings sound not .midi like in "The Rush?" I layered them in octaves. That's what composers do in such situations and I learned that by listening to orchestral and classical music and analyzing why that is.


Composers did not double instrument by the octave to make them sound less midi-ish but to create different textures. More on that http://www.talkclassical.com/9326-voice-leading-orchestra.html



> See, outside of this place, there are actually people who LIKE my stuff.





> And so far, people like my stuff.


Don't really care about people. Music by nature is elitist. Few can play it well, even fewer can write it well. Approval of the masses does not necessarily mean your work is good. Let's not forget at one point most people thought the earth was flat.



> I think you people operate under too many rules, honestly.


The rules came into being because not following them generally creates dreadful music. Yes, harmony professors have made it the business to imply the rules are sacred, but the rules didn't just appear out of thin air. They are paedagogic deductions of the study of the practice of the great masters.



> In other words, maybe one day I'll master your advanced harmony and counterpart. This is what...my eighth real symphony I've composed?...One day I will master all that, but not before I master how to make symphonic music that people like.


Except that to make good music in the style you try to impersonate here, advanced cpoint and harmony, study of form, study of thematic developement and all that jazz are the building blocks. Without which your music will always be of questionable quality.

Would this be real enough criticism?


----------



## teknoaxe

Rasa said:


> Real criticism then
> 
> Would this be real enough criticism?


Fair enough. I guess at four months, I've no where to go but up in all this. At least you didn't throw dead composers at it.


----------



## MJTTOMB

teknoaxe said:


> Fair enough. I guess at four months, I've no where to go but up in all this. At least you didn't throw dead composers at it.


One day you'll be a dead composer. Do you want to be like them and have your works remembered, by writing with the tremendous amount of effort and structural consideration they poured into their works, or do you want to be forgotten like those many who did not?


----------



## teknoaxe

MJTTOMB said:


> One day you'll be a dead composer. Do you want to be like them and have your works remembered, by writing with the tremendous amount of effort and structural consideration they poured into their works, or do you want to be forgotten like those many who did not?


Right now, at the moment, I'm trying to "stay alive" by following up on an idea to get some freelance engineering work coming my way. Times are tough, mang.


----------



## Earthling

teknoaxe said:


> At least you didn't throw dead composers at it.


Actually, in a sense, he did, because it is many standards like these which all great composers have aimed for, each in their own unique way, adding their own voice to a long tradition.

The same could be said for rock, jazz, folk, blues, etc.


----------



## MJTTOMB

I'm just curious as to why one would join a classical forum if one had no interest in the works of the masters?


----------



## Rasa

I'm curious why people would want to write bombastic music yet refuse to study bombastic music.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Rasa said:


> I'm curious why people would want to write bombastic music yet refuse to study bombastic music.


This. ^^^^


----------



## teknoaxe

Rasa said:


> I'm curious why people would want to write bombastic music yet refuse to study bombastic music.


My first ever favorite song was the William Tell Overture.


----------

