# It took my 1 hour to compose this - I hope it's decent



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

Hello.

I composed this little measure in the hour of free time I had this evening. I didn't have time to turn it into a concerto or modulate even but I hope you get the idea of the piece. It's inspired by Vivaldi of course.

Comments welcome. I hope you remember Vivaldi because without him, you wouldn't have your Mozart who you all so dearly admire. Just think about Vivaldi and also Bach please and how important they are.

Don't be too critical because I am a new composer but I listen to a lot of Vivaldi. 

Thank you.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

It doesn't sound like it should be played by a harpsichord, a piano maybe.


----------



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

Burroughs said:


> It doesn't sound like it should be played by a harpsichord, a piano maybe.


What is this exotic instrument you speak of? There is nothing but the harpsichord and there will be nothing other than the harpsichord.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Burn it... :tiphat:


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2013)

Vivaldi said:


> Hello.
> 
> I composed this little measure in the hour of free time I had this evening. I didn't have time to turn it into a concerto or modulate even but I hope you get the idea of the piece. It's inspired by Vivaldi of course.
> 
> ...


Hi Viv. Would you mind popping back to your "Burn" thread to respond to some questions from posters whove had quite a bit to say? Thanks. Then i might reply to this thread.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hopeless. 

The world does not need a Vivaldi imitator or impersonator. 

Vivalldi wrote a great deal of music, and we need no more than the real thing from the real guy.

I agree with Kieran: Best to burn it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Broaden your Baroque horizons beyond Bach and Vivaldi, at the very least

Jean-Philippe Rameau:
Tonnerre (thunder)




Rondeau des Indes Galantes





Here is a two-hour long clip of an all Rameau concert with Les Musiciens du Louvre, Marc Minkowski conducting





Giuseppe Torelli ~ Concerti Grossi





Arcangelo Corelli ~ Twelve Concerti Grossi





There is more than one way to skin a cat, and that was just as true in the Baroque Era.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

There's a sense that we're always in the same place musically throughout, like a drone. You don't have to modulate to change this. You have to have a bass line that outlines the changing harmonies and acts as an equal partner in the piece. In fact, this _basso continuo_ is the very thing that defined Baroque music as distinct from that of the Renaissance. Your bass line remains on the tonic for over 20 bars without reprieve, and when it does move, there's no sense of any progression.

Parallels abound, which makes the counterpoint sound awkward. Try to be aware of successive fifths and octaves, and your music will begin to sound more Baroque.

Your consistent use of G# as both ascending leading tone and descending melodic tone _but not F#_ is not supported by traditional use of tonality. Note the awkward augmented second interval in the 6th bar, completely dissonant against the harmony without any preparation or resolution.

Even if you want the harmony to consist only of i and V chords, you can have a fluid bass line by using inversions of those chords and passing tones, etc.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Read my feedback on your previous piece. It's all completely relevant to this one, and I don't have anything to add.

Here's my advice to you:
- Cease composing for at least a month. and take the time to study species counterpoint and figured bass. Here's a scan of a latin textbook from 1725, because I'm sure you'll have reservations about touching something published after 1750.
- Learn at least the basics of playing keyboard. Maybe you can buy yourself a clavichord.
- Start putting more time and effort into your work. You say this was composed in an hour, and it shows. Maybe you could take some time out of your Mozart burning sessions to actually take your time with composing.


----------



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> There's a sense that we're always in the same place musically throughout, like a drone. You don't have to modulate to change this. You have to have a bass line that outlines the changing harmonies and acts as an equal partner in the piece. In fact, this _basso continuo_ is the very thing that defined Baroque music as distinct from that of the Renaissance. Your bass line remains on the tonic for over 20 bars without reprieve, and when it does move, there's no sense of any progression.
> 
> Parallels abound, which makes the counterpoint sound awkward. Try to be aware of successive fifths and octaves, and your music will begin to sound more Baroque.
> 
> ...


How did they modulate in the Baroque period?


----------



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> Read my feedback on your previous piece. It's all completely relevant to this one, and I don't have anything to add.
> 
> Here's my advice to you:
> - Cease composing for at least a month. and take the time to study species counterpoint and figured bass. Here's a scan of a latin textbook from 1725, because I'm sure you'll have reservations about touching something published after 1750.
> ...


Help me I'm rooted in the tonic key. It's lonely here and I don't know how to leave according to the rules of Baroque composition. What is the normal way to modulate in Baroque music?

I feel I must learn every modulation possible on keyboard, then I can compose something worthwhile. You might say well I don't have to learn all of them but yes I do, because some may be betters than others in some situation.

Yes I'm new so please be nice.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Vivaldi said:


> How did they modulate in the Baroque period?


http://javanese.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/5/5f/IMSLP04192-Bach-air-a4.pdf

Spend some time with this. It is in three 6-bar phrases. The first begins in D major and ends in A major. The second (after the repeat) begins in A major and ends in A major (actually V7 of D), but with a quick pause on B minor in the fourth bar, and the third brings it back to D major.

The fact that you don't hear these _as_ changes of key is significant, because it shows that you can hear the center of gravity as D the whole time.

Furthermore, note how the above actually outlines a simple chord progression (repeats in brackets): I-V-[I-V]-(vi)-V7-I-[V-(vi)-V7-I].


----------



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> http://javanese.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/5/5f/IMSLP04192-Bach-air-a4.pdf
> 
> Spend some time with this. It is in three 6-bar phrases. The first begins in D major and ends in A major. The second (after the repeat) begins in A major and ends in A major (actually V7 of D), but with a quick pause on B minor in the fourth bar, and the third brings it back to D major.
> 
> ...


When Bach and Vivaldi learnt the ways of composition, how do you think they did it?


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Vivaldi said:


> Help me I'm rooted in the tonic key. It's lonely here and I don't know how to leave according to the rules of Baroque composition. What is the normal way to modulate in Baroque music?
> 
> I feel I must learn every modulation possible on keyboard, then I can compose something worthwhile. You might say well I don't have to learn all of them but yes I do, because some may be betters than others in some situation.
> 
> Yes I'm new so please be nice.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Vivaldi said:


> When Bach and Vivaldi learnt the ways of composition, how do you think they did it?


They studied counterpoint and figured bass.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Vivaldi said:


> When Bach and Vivaldi learnt the ways of composition, how do you think they did it?


Ditto what StevenOBrien said.

I'm also positive beyond any doubt that Bach spent far more than a single hour on those 18 bars.


----------



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> They studied counterpoint and figured bass.


Then what made them prolific? Was it their creativity and how they used the counterpoint/figured bass if that makes any sense? A musician can learn all of this but still be unable to compose anything on the level of Bach/Vivaldi. Why is this?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Vivaldi said:


> Then what made them prolific? Was it their creativity and how they used the counterpoint/figured bass if that makes any sense? A musician can learn all of this but still be unable to compose anything on the level of Bach/Vivaldi. Why is this?


A combination of mastery (specifically of those techniques in question), talent, and experience. Also, we are so far removed from the time of Bach and Vivaldi that what seemed natural to them is set in stone for us. Baroque counterpoint and thoroughbass are ossified at this point, no longer a living tradition, while in the early 18th century, they were still in development. So they came at these things from the inside, and we come at them from the outside.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Vivaldi said:


> Then what made them prolific? Was it their creativity and how they used the counterpoint/figured bass if that makes any sense? A musician can learn all of this but still be unable to compose anything on the level of Bach/Vivaldi. Why is this?


Learning theory is like learning how to speak, how to articulate what you want to say, and how to write. Musically, if you have nothing to say in the first place, it is all worthless, but if you have something to say but cannot say it in a way that others understand, it is also worthless. Musically, Bach and Vivaldi had "very interesting things to say" and knew damn well how to "say them".

(Please note, I'm not trying to draw literary analogies to music, it's just a metaphor.)


----------



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> A combination of mastery (specifically of those techniques in question), talent, and experience. Also, we are so far removed from the time of Bach and Vivaldi that what seemed natural to them is set in stone for us. Baroque counterpoint and thoroughbass are ossified at this point, no longer a living tradition, while in the early 18th century, they were still in development. So they came at these things from the inside, and we come at them from the outside.


Is it like an English speaker of today attempting to learn Shakespearean English? How do you define talent? What is it - essentially creativity?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> They studied counterpoint and figured bass.


modal counterpoint of the renaissance, not the tonal counterpoint from the baroque, which they along with other later renaissance / early baroque composers, invented ;-)

Stop wanting it all at once -- it can't happen and will eat you up. Baby steps.


----------



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> Learning theory is like learning how to speak, how to articulate what you want to say, and how to write. Musically, if you have nothing to say in the first place, it is all worthless, but if you have something to say but cannot say it in a way that others understand, it is also worthless. Musically, Bach and Vivaldi had "very interesting things to say" and knew damn well how to "say them".
> 
> (Please note, I'm not trying to draw literary analogies to music, it's just a metaphor.)


Pivot chords aside, are there any other modulations Baroque composers used? A Google search doesn't yield many useful results.


----------



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> Learning theory is like learning how to speak, how to articulate what you want to say, and how to write. Musically, if you have nothing to say in the first place, it is all worthless, but if you have something to say but cannot say it in a way that others understand, it is also worthless. Musically, Bach and Vivaldi had "very interesting things to say" and knew damn well how to "say them".
> 
> (Please note, I'm not trying to draw literary analogies to music, it's just a metaphor.)


I feel disappointed that I have to learn a completely new approach to composition. I feel frustrated that my previous efforts are unlikely to synergize with such an approach. DO I have very interesting things to say but unfortunately do not have the acquired tools to say them?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Vivaldi said:


> I feel disappointed that I have to learn a completely new approach to composition. I feel frustrated that my previous efforts are unlikely to synergize with such an approach. DO I have very interesting things to say but unfortunately do not have the acquired tools to say them?


The honest answer to this is that we can't tell whether you have anything interesting to say or not because you're not articulating it in any way we can evaluate. I'm positive that what you're giving us isn't the same as what you would want to give us if you could compose as you wished.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2013)

Come on guys, poster "Tony" Vivaldi is having you on, can't you see?

@ Vivalidi : Dear "Tony": please do keep up the compositional efforts (don't give up the day job, OK?), but do you truly believe you have anything 'new' to say in the 'authentic Vivaldi idiom' that hasn't already been done to death?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vivaldi said:


> Pivot chords aside, are there any other modulations Baroque composers used? A Google search doesn't yield many useful results.


Now Hear This! You don't want a laundry list of "progressions."

You don't want to take in theory like a laundry list you only have in your head -- it must be understood, via the brain, but if not connected to the ears, there is no point.

You want to learn about harmony. Period. From studying earlier music, you will gain a sense of what that harmonic world was, and what some more typical progressions or modulations were.

You're still in a hurry. Copying from a template a series of harmonies without having any idea how they work or how they got to be that way is being a monkey act, at best.

I know you're eager, and don't doubt the sincerity of that. You are also eager to get it all at once and make those big glorious pieces, "Yesterday. And Make That Snappy!" tsk tsk 

If you only knew how littered this site, Youtube, and others, etc. are with beginning composers' attempts at "Baroque Concerto" "Piano Concerto" and "Symphony" you might think better of your seeming desires of the moment... seriously.


----------



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> Come on guys, poster "Tony" Vivaldi is having you on, can't you see?
> 
> @ Vivalidi : Dear "Tony": please do keep up the compositional efforts (don't give up the day job, OK?), but do you truly believe you have anything 'new' to say in the 'authentic Vivaldi idiom' that hasn't already been done to death?


Having you on? On what sense?


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2013)

*In* what sense? Well, are you not the guy who wants to burn all music after Vivaldi?
I have answered your question. You have not answered mine. 
Before you do so, here's a little anecdote: my composition teacher studied with Messiaen at the Paris Conservatoire. In those days they had small tutorials (meaning the 'master' with a handful of students), and each fortnight or so the students had to turn up with their compositions 'in progress' for discussion, analysis and a 'play through' at the piano. It can be said that all of the students had 'talent' of some degree or other. One student turned up with a score one day that Messiaen promptly tore up in front of the group saying "We don't write music like that anymore, it's already been done."


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Just as everyone here has said, just slow down a little bit. The master composers were prolific only by virtue of being so diligently practiced and familiar with their craft. Bach could easily improvise grand fugues on seemingly improbable subjects because he knew exactly what he was doing. But such musical "dexterity" comes only with painfully tedious study.

While it may seem as though there is little to music: a certain set of rules which, once properly memorized, guide one to create singular masterpieces, in fact, music theory only gives a certain schematic guidance, its mastery does not make a master composer. I've been studying music theory, both in private training and in intensive self-study, for more than twenty years, and there still remains a great deal to learn.

Likewise with composing, I have been doing it for 15 years, yet I am still not confident enough to share, perform, or broadcast [via internet] my works. The point is that you must have patience and humility; there is nothing prohibiting you from becoming a great composer, but you have to start from the very beginning. Don't give up!

Composing is rather like playing an instrument: the benefits of diligent and scrupulous practice _accumulate_.


----------



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> *In* what sense? Well, are you not the guy who wants to burn all music after Vivaldi?
> I have answered your question. You have not answered mine.
> Before you do so, here's a little anecdote: my composition teacher studied with Messiaen at the Paris Conservatoire. In those days they had small tutorials (meaning the 'master' with a handful of students), and each fortnight or so the students had to turn up with their compositions 'in progress' for discussion, analysis and a 'play through' at the piano. It can be said that all of the students had 'talent' of some degree or other. One student turned up with a score one day that Messiaen promptly tore up in front of the group saying "We don't write music like that anymore, it's already been done."


I do not care about your composition teacher. This has no relevance to me because I compose for sheer enjoyment in any free time available to me. All music post 1750 is corrupt and should be burned without question.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2013)

Well, thank you Vivaldi, for that. 
Goodbye, dear fellow.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Vivaldi said:


> All music post 1750 is corrupt and should be burned without question.


And you _still_ don't get the irony of you saying that on a thread where you presented your own post-1750 music?


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2013)

This link is for "Tony" Vivaldi. It concerns an artwork that is post 1750 and one that took quite a long time to write. I trust that it will send him 'over the edge', so to speak.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/may/14/stockhausen-helicopter-string-quartet-prize


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vivaldi said:


> I do not care about your composition teacher. This has no relevance to me because I compose for sheer enjoyment in any free time available to me. All music post 1750 is corrupt and should be burned without question.


You were born far too late, then, and more is the pity for you, and for us.

There is already a tremendous body of fine Baroque music which you will not, no matter how clever you get, ever surpass. Here is why: it will be impossible for you to erase or override all your modern sensibilities to be exactly in the frame of mind, world outlook, spiritual outlook, philosophical outlook, etc. of an 18th century Italian Catholic or an 18th century Reformation Lutheran. You will never find the exact ethos or logos to create truly original and worthwhile works like those of that period.

By your definition, you are also corrupt, as are your tools, electronic, digital, your lifestyle (warm water, indoor plumbing, health vaccinations within the first years after birth -- the odds you were born healthy at all and not dead within the first year or two after being born are modern -- bathing every day, fresh vegetables all year round, television, a society in which even that grocer knows how to read, type, use a computer, ad infinitum.)

You do not have to play or sing to listen to music, you've already heard music, both pop and classical, from much later than the era you claim is 'pure.' You are tainted, you are corrupt, you can not replicate the music of that era without its being no more than a very slick (and corrupt) pastiche.

_Yours is a whopping conceit, loaded with the luxury of a spiritual vanity only a well-cushioned 21st century middle class person from a more liberal western culture could afford._

You might want to reconsider your point of view.

Add P.s. If you write this pseudo baroque stuff "for your own pleasure" then what, pray tell us, has you consulting those who know much about classical music, on a pretty much open to all forum?
Ahh, apart from the false modestly of wishing to take actual good advice and improve, could it be _a vaunting egoist ambition to want to be recognized for this great work?_ So much for the 18th century genuine humility of writing all for the glory of God, and never being puffed up about your ability or the work resulting from it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> This link is for "Tony" Vivaldi. It concerns an artwork that is post 1750 and one that took quite a long time to write. I trust that it will send him 'over the edge', so to speak.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/may/14/stockhausen-helicopter-string-quartet-prize


You don't have to even go that far -- that is if all the posturing is not posturing 

This neo-baroque charmer is probably enough to cause a similar fit...
Stravinsky ~ Concerto in Eb, Dumbarton Oaks.




or his delightful _Vom Himmel Hoch Variations_


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

To the OP: Others here have already said much the same, but let me add my two cents.

You cannot write Chinese poetry until you are absolutely fluent in Chinese language and culture. Or, for that matter, Elizabethan drama, until you are completely fluent in the language and culture of the time, all the works of Shakespeare and Marlowe etc. 

One reason why composers like Vivaldi could churn out such huge reams of music is that they were absolutely, unwaveringly fluent in the musical language of their time. Now as PetrB pointed out, you are inevitably "tainted" by your own cultural experience, but I think if it amuses you, you could learn to write very credible pastiches of Baroque music, and indeed perhaps even ones that will make people sit up and listen and go "wow." I once met a bloke online who composed with amazing fluency and credibility in the Classical style of Haydn and Mozart, and he taught himself music theory by studying their scores!

But you'll have to become completely fluent in the language. Develop the same inner ear that Vivaldi possessed, and know, in detail, the musical theory of the time. That means hours of reading through scores by Baroque composers (and you will have to have the ability to hear it in your mind as you read). Do exercises like transcribing a Vivaldi violin concerto for flute, transposing it into a different key. Get to the point where you can write a fugue on the back of a napkin while sitting in a noisy restaurant (as Hovanhess reportedly could). 

I always like to think that one point of being an amateur composer is not just to compose, but to also develop a deeper appreciation and respect for the masters of old, thus it is a good idea to study their work in detail. You are lucky to have all the equipment we have today: Bach did not have the luxury of pressing a button and "rewind" in order to listen to the same passage over and over until he "got" it. Or perhaps you are in fact unlucky to have access to such equipment. Perhaps it makes our ears and our minds lazy. Perhaps you need to "go monk" for a while: make a decision not to listen to a note of recorded music for two years, or until you can hear music in your head with complete clarity? 

Either way, you cannot learn to speak Vivaldi without first understanding Vivaldi, I would think. See my first point about Chinese poetry. And what you need to understand here is simply the nuts and bolts of his language, not his inner soul or creativity or whatever other faddish New Age ideas you may possibly adhere to. As Picasso said, inspiration exists, but it has to find you working. 

I never had time to learn music theory, so in my own compositional efforts I learned very early not to try to write in anyone else's style, and instead to just happily bang out ditties at the keyboard or guitar. It's fun, but one should not take oneself too seriously with that kind of stuff. 

If I ever do have time, I think I would much rather learn the skill of a perfect inner ear, to be able to read a fugue and hear it in my head, than to learn composition: I don't think anything I make up in my head is ever going to be able to compete with what master composers can put there, if only I could follow their scores.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Vivaldi said:


> What is this exotic instrument you speak of? There is nothing but the harpsichord and there will be nothing other than the harpsichord.


I hate the harpsichord. Burn it along with the composition you made.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Some people here in TC is so mean..


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

peeyaj said:


> Some people here in TC is so mean..


I'm not mean I just hate the harpsichord!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> Some people here in TC is so mean..


The ********! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

peeyaj said:


> Some people here in TC is so mean..


You might be right, peeyaj, Vivaldi could be a youngster looking for to improve. In which case, Steven and Mahlerian have given great advice and after this, lessons would be in order. It's still ironic though  but I wish Vivaldi well in his efforts...


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

peeyaj said:


> Some people here in TC is so mean..


Yes, telling someone that they should burn all the music that gives their life meaning is indeed quite a mean thing to say.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> Yes, telling someone that they should burn all the music that gives their life meaning is indeed quite a mean thing to say.


Putting it in the form of a Grumpy Cat meme might soften the blow, though, don't you think?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Novelette said:


> Putting it in the form of a Grumpy Cat meme might soften the blow, though, don't you think?


All cat memes after 2009 should be burned.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> All cat memes after 2009 should be burned.


Now _that's_ a burning program I can get on board with!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vivaldi said:


> I feel disappointed that I have to learn a completely new approach to composition. I feel frustrated that my previous efforts are unlikely to synergize with such an approach. DO I have very interesting things to say but unfortunately do not have the acquired tools to say them?


Welcome to the wonderful world of self-taught, with all those very possible pitfalls of finding out you've taken years to invent a wheel while it existed all the time, or have misunderstood something you read somewhere, which becomes the basis and slant which then has you subsequently also misreading the later lessons along the cumulative route of study and building skills... a potential exponentially increasing compounding of error, and a massive waste of time.

Very few have such an innate understanding, without explanation, of music theory, that the full of gaps or mistakes sort of autodidact far outnumbers the ones who got it right.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

I used to listen to longer-than-one-hour-composed music,.... but I'll give your composition a try. 

As I predicted this thread going to be as popular as the other one, so I'll not missed any amusing reading for weekend. :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Houston, we have a problem: Young aspiring composer thinks that todays work will be free of all of yesterdays faults.

What's that Houston? Yes, young aspiring composer has already been given good doses of advice on the technical studies needed to improve both today's sketch and the sketches presented yesterday.

Yes, Houston, said young composer was advised that those exercises would not result in any dramatic overnight change.

Check. Many experienced in composing each advised said aspiring composer very similarly.

Yes, Houston. O.K. Understood. All that can be done here is done. Awaiting your directive and coordinates to continue on to the next mission.

Check. Got that. 

Over and out.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Welcome to the wonderful world of self-taught, with all those very possible pitfalls of finding out you've taken years to invent a wheel while it existed all the time, or have misunderstood something you read somewhere, which becomes the basis and slant which then has you subsequently also misreading the later lessons along the cumulative route of study and building skills... a potential exponentially increasing compounding of error, and a massive waste of time.
> 
> Very few have such an innate understanding, without explanation, of music theory, that the full of gaps or mistakes sort of autodidact far outnumbers the ones who got it right.


It seems to me perfectly feasible to compose without any understanding of music theory, or at least without any formal understanding of it. Folks musicians have after all been doing this for ages. But it seems to me that amateur composers should not try to be too "deep" with it. Someone with a good ear can quite possibly compose a perfectly good folkish country dance, or lyrical ballad; he's going to run into difficulties trying to compose a fugue, or an extended work full of modulations and advanced development of themes etc.

And lest I sound like a snob, let me make it clear that I do not mean to imply that folk music is necessarily inferior - there's a lot of it that I find quite hauntingly beautiful, and vastly preferable to run-of-the-mill classical music.

I think our OP's problem here is that he is trying to do intuitively what probably simply cannot be done that way, unless perhaps if you are spectacularly talented. If memory serves, Mussorgsky knew rather little about western harmony, and worked out much of what he composed painstakingly at the piano. In his particular case, it often resulted in idiosyncratic but memorable music. Most others will probably not have that kind of success, and my guess is that Mussorgsky would never have been able to pull off any sort of credible Vivaldi pastiche (whereas a composer well versed in the musical language, even a quite untalented one, would be able to do so.)

I perceive in the OP a disappointment and incredulity at the notion that music could be quite that much of a nuts and bolts thing, as opposed to an artist "expressing himself" (whatever exactly that means). But classical music actually goes against musical intuition, if you ask me. For most of human history, three minute folk songs and dances were the totality of our musical expression. Our brains are likely geared to understand and compose that sort of thing. Symphonies and concertos are quite unnatural things, in the same way that huge apartment blocks are - it doesn't mean they have no right to exist, but if you want to build a fifty story apartment block you'd better study engineering, instead of trying to express yourself!

So in summary, my advice to the OP: by all means keep right on composing, but either embark on a loo-o-ong and intensive study of music theory, or confine your efforts to something with a lighter texture, focusing on inventing attractive melodic lines and perhaps interesting rhythmic patterns, instead of trying to be "deep." Simple but honest music can in fact be surprisingly deep and memorable and enduring. Folk songs like "Greensleeves" date from the Middle Ages; they are still endlessly sung and transcribed and reworked, by everyone from preschoolers to Vaughan Williams.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I haven't listened to this one-hour composition yet. Since Shostakovich wrote Tahiti Trot in 45 minutes, I assume it will be better than that.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I haven't listened to this one-hour composition yet. Since Shostakovich wrote Tahiti Trot in 45 minutes, I assume it will be better than that.


It's certainly more eccentric.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I haven't listened to this one-hour composition yet. Since Shostakovich wrote Tahiti Trot in 45 minutes, I assume it will be better than that.


But You know, Shostakovich just did the orchestration, he "stole" the melody from Vincent Youmans.. Not real composition there, he just wrote it down as an orchestral score on paper, such things must surely be to mundane for Vivaldi D.Y., he surely must be the master of everything since he allows himself to pass judgement on all musical posterity! 

/ptr


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianvds said:


> It seems to me perfectly feasible to compose without any understanding of music theory, or at least without any formal understanding of it. Folks musicians have after all been doing this for ages. But it seems to me that amateur composers should not try to be too "deep" with it. Someone with a good ear can quite possibly compose a perfectly good folkish country dance, or lyrical ballad; he's going to run into difficulties trying to compose a fugue, or an extended work full of modulations and advanced development of themes etc.
> 
> And lest I sound like a snob, let me make it clear that I do not mean to imply that folk music is necessarily inferior - there's a lot of it that I find quite hauntingly beautiful, and vastly preferable to run-of-the-mill classical music.
> 
> ...


You're 1000% correct. What seems not accepted is that with or without that training, or while going about that training, to dump the big ambitions, at least for now, and work -- exactly as you recommend, whatever the hoped for vocabulary -- on very short pieces in very simple forms. Because that is everyone's primal reflex, the universal semiotic dossier we all carry around and have immediately at hand to work with.

Hope you got through to where, it seems, "No man has gone before"


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I just want to say that, Vivaldi, it seems to me that you want a quick fix answer to becoming as great as Vivaldi or Bach. That's just not gonna happen dude. If you want to come close to their greatness, you need to seriously devote your life to music composition, not just write a few pieces that each took you an hour.

Here I want to show you something. I'm a pretty okay composer. But here is one of the first pieces I ever wrote. I wrote this when I was about 13, it's in a Baroque keyboard style sort of but it has many of the same problems that your pieces have.






Now, here is a piece I wrote about a year ago. It's not an ideal example because I no longer write in a Baroque idiom but I promise you that I am not as good as Bach in my respective idiom and this is after about 7 years of studying, writing and internalizing music composition practices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5VEDlfzUK7A#t=39s

A few hours composing a couple pieces and googling chord progressions aint gonna make you into the next Bach, bud.


----------

