# Should I just give up writing?



## Manok

I get next to no feedback on any of my music. If I do, it never makes me feel good. The feedback usually is. "There isn't enough development." Or "There's too much development. " Or any one of a hundred things that make a piece of music not work at all. So, I'm thinking of just giving up entirely, because what's the point in creating things if they're no good?


----------



## Star

Depends why you do it. If to be the next Mozart then maybe. If writing music is just a hobby you enjoy then that is fine and don't worry about it. The guy I know paints pictures in his retirement. He knows no one will ever see them or buy them but he just enjoys doing it


----------



## Zeus

If you think you can write masterpieces from one day to another, you're mistaken. It takes years of dedication and practice, to begin writing something even remotely good. This is true for anyone.


----------



## Manok

I just want to know the music is at least listenable. That’s all I care about. I’m certain I’ll never create a masterpiece. I just need some sort of encouragement.


----------



## Pugg

Manok said:


> I just want to know the music is at least listenable. That's all I care about. I'm certain I'll never create a masterpiece. I just need some sort of encouragement.


If you go to the http://www.talkclassical.com/todays-composers/ thread, you can see how quick things can get nasty, so perhaps everybody holding in.


----------



## Ingélou

You shouldn't give up writing, but you should give up expectations of being acclaimed as a good composer any time soon. 

If you are a good composer, that may be later, after years of working on things, informing yourself, practical experience, and maybe a lucky break. If you love music, you will want to go on writing, and it will be its own reward. 

If I were you, I would look at what you want to achieve and form a plan, a project over the years, for you to achieve it. In the meantime, don't post for others' criticism, as it will only put you off, and how over the internet will you be able to distinguish 'good' criticism that helps you to do better from criticism that might have you haring in the wrong direction? 

Someone you actually know in real life, that you respect as regards music, can help you to 'improve your game'; friends and family can give you encouragement, especially if you compose for an occasion - background music to a play, a local concert etc. 

I spent several years of my life writing historical novels and got nowhere, but I don't regret it. The experience was joyful, like a sort of mysticism, and my husband and I hugely enjoyed the research. One day I mean to go back to it. 
But in the meantime - not writing it, but playing and listening - it's all music, music, music...


----------



## nikola

Zeus said:


> If you think you can write masterpieces from one day to another, you're mistaken. It takes years of dedication and practice, to begin writing something even remotely good. This is true for anyone.


No, it's not true.


----------



## nikola

Do you make music to enjoy in it and in the process or for other people? You should be happy with your own music. That's the most important.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Writing in pop style is obviously very simple, with I IV V progressions mostly, and it is listenable. Writing in classical style involves more depth, at least in looking at the music. I think it is important to study the converions, etc other composers used. A lot can come from just by learning their pieces. If you play piano, you can follow the harmony, etc. I never bothered to write a single note until lots of playing other pieces, and listening to lots of music. Until I felt I had some handle on how music is and where it could go. Write music when you have ideas to experiment with or express, not just for sake of writing. This is all just my view.

My start was arranging a few pop songs on piano to play for family and friends. On the piano keys I can see how harmony revolves around itself more. Try messing around there, and a motif, melody or something can come up, and you can build around it.

Most of all, your ideas should be interesting to yourself at least, and if it based on some musical concept, then it doesn’t really matter who else likes it.


----------



## Nate Miller

what sort of ensemble are you writing for? Do you have a group of musicians that you are writing for, or are you just writing without any particular group of players in mind?

what I'm getting at is that you might just want to change the type of pieces you are doing for awhile and write something for someone you personally know to play. If you are writing for an orchestra, for example, it can be hard to get an orchestra to take up your piece. but if you know a violinist and you wrote a quartet, you might be able to get your music played.

you have to be resourceful to get your music performed these days, and the best resource is good friends who can really play

so take a look around at who you know that would work with you and write music for them and get your music performed

the exercise of beating your head against the wall of getting your music performed should be enough to take your mind off of being discouraged 

and remember that the true gift of music has nothing to do with how well you play or write...the true gift is that music enriches your life

...so why stop writing? everything seems more dreary in January, don't let the winter get to you


----------



## amfortas

Star said:


> Depends why you do it. If to be the next Mozart then maybe. If writing music is just a hobby you enjoy then that is fine and don't worry about it. The guy I know paints pictures in his retirement. He knows no one will ever see them or buy them but he just enjoys doing it


In a similar vein, I write novels, with no particular concern about publication (I'm not that good). I'm in a writers' critique group, and they give me feedback to help me improve my work. In the end, though, it's not the lure of fame and fortune, but the enjoyment of a creative challenge, that motivates me (and keeps me from taking up more problematic hobbies, like prostitution).


----------



## Zeus

nikola said:


> No, it's not true.


Not true if you like 3rd rate music, anyways..


----------



## Couchie

Many of the even greatest composers churned out a lot of crap in their early years. Keep at it. Expand your knowledge of music theory, development, harmony, melody, orchestration.


----------



## nikola

Zeus said:


> Not true if you like 3rd rate music, anyways..


You either have or don't have talent for composing music. The longevity of learning music has nothing to do with quality of music. It's simply mental construction that has no real base in reality. Learning composing skills are simply skills like any other that can help you to be technically more advanced. Sure, with time you'll probably become more skilled at composing, but if you don't have talent it's all useless.
Brahms certainly didn't need decades to compose tune like 'Lullaby' and most of the time, for the best melodies/harmonies you don't need to have 50 years of musical education. You only need talent, musical sensibility and ear.


----------



## Zeus

nikola said:


> You either have or don't have talent for composing music. The longevity of learning music has nothing to do with quality of music. It's simply mental construction that has no real base in reality. Learning composing skills are simply skills like any other that can help you to be technically more advanced. Sure, with time you'll probably become more skilled at composing, but if you don't have talent it's all useless.
> Brahms certainly didn't need decades to compose tune like 'Lullaby' and most of the time, for the best melodies/harmonies you don't need to have 50 years of musical education. You only need talent, musical sensibility and ear.


Your comment does not contradict mine. Even if you are as talented as you can be, you still have to practice for years to compose quality music. Or cite me an example showing otherwise.


----------



## nikola

Zeus said:


> Your comment does not contradict mine. Even if you are as talented as you can be, you still have to practice for years to compose quality music. Or cite me an example showing otherwise.


Vangelis, Yanni, Hans Zimmer, Danny Elfman - all without musical education.


----------



## Zeus

nikola said:


> Vangelis, Yanni, Hans Zimmer, Danny Elfman - all without musical education.


That is all trash


----------



## nikola

Zeus said:


> That is all trash


You are obviously closed-minded and tone-deaf and by listening to your piece thread below it's pretty much obvious why you think those are trash.


----------



## David OByrne

Zeus said:


> That is all trash


Do you have ears? I don't think so


----------



## Torkelburger

> You either have or don't have talent for composing music.


You don't have to have talent when you start composing music as talent is something that can be nurtured, despite your claims to the contrary.


> Brahms certainly didn't need decades to compose tune like 'Lullaby'


That's rather ironic that you bring up Brahms as it took Brahms 20 years to compose his first symphony.


> Brahms certainly didn't need decades to compose tune like 'Lullaby' and most of the time, for the best melodies/harmonies you don't need to have 50 years of musical education. You only need talent, musical sensibility and ear.


You are describing simple music here. We are not talking about pop music. We're not writing pop songs. These aren't "tunes" were talking about. A concerto isn't written like a "tune". And a symphony is not a bunch of melodies and harmonies strung together one after the other. We are talking about writing substantial pieces of art music for the concert hall in the classical tradition, not music for easy listening, background music for a film, TV, etc. It is pieces that could take 20 minutes or more (per movement) for its developmental arch or to make a complete and rational musical argument, and do so in a way that is musically, formally, and psychologically gratifying. "Tunes", melodies/harmonies are not a requirement for that, btw.


> Vangelis, Yanni, Hans Zimmer, Danny Elfman - all without musical education.


Yes, it is quite evident these composers do not have a musical education. And these examples support Zeus's initial point. Take Danny Elfman. His music is quite derivative of itself and his musical palette is very limited, a symptom of lack of training and experience. Also take note of his "serious" attempt at the concert hall, a piece called "Serenada Schizophrana" for orchestra. One can immediately tell this was composed by an untrained film composer because 1) the piece is composed of 24 movements 2) the movements are short and lack development 3) some of the movements have similar and derivative musical qualities between themselves 4) it's as though he has 24 ideas but doesn't know what to do with them on a substantial scale 5) limited orchestral colors and overuse of orchestration. It's kind of like cues from a movie soundtrack. A whole bunch of tracks/movements, each one short, no development, limited in melody and orchestration, etc. Just like a soundtrack. But that's all he knows. Talent, sensibility, and ear can only get you so far when you're trying to do something beyond pop music.


----------



## nikola

This musicians without musical education has their own sound and style, so yes, they are much more original than students who are composing by learning from long time dated music. It's not important how 'simple' music is. It's important how interesting it is and is it able to bring any emotions. 
Many musicians who are obsessed with musical theory can probably compose complex music for the sake of complexity and complex isn't necessarily better. Actually, complex music can pretty much hide the fact when someone doesn't have musical talent.
It can't hide that fact to me, but it probably can to you.


----------



## Timothy

Torkelburger said:


> That's rather ironic that you bring up Brahms as it took Brahms 20 years to compose his first symphony.


And to top that, it's one of his worst works. His following symphonies where major improvements


----------



## Couchie

Better to be a creator of crap music than a critic without a single creative production to his name.


----------



## Phil loves classical

One can learn bits and pieces of music theory instinctively. Although not huge fans of Elfman and Zimmer, I think they do have some talent for being self taught. I just read about Zimmer yesterday after watching Planet Earth 2, that he regretted not having a formal education, cuz he feels himself more limited than other film composers. Depends on what you look for in music, self-taught may be enough for some.


----------



## Torkelburger

> This musicians without musical education has their own sound and style, so yes, they are much more original than students who are composing by learning from long time dated music.


No, Yanni and Zimmer are fairly cut-and-dry, fashion plate, bland, cut-and-paste, run-of-the mill sound and style in their particular genres. Elfman rips himself off every chance he gets. And since we are talking film composers, Jerry Goldsmith (who was post-secondary music educated and advocated education and also wrote for the concert hall), was a thousand times more original than Zimmer or Elfman. He could also adapt better to the particular sound required for the film better than just about anyone.


> It's not important how 'simple' music is. It's important how interesting it is and is it able to bring any emotions.


I'm sorry but I just find simple "tunes" and brief melodies/harmonies boring and unemotional. You need not agree, however.


> Actually, complex music can pretty much hide the fact when someone doesn't have musical talent.


Given that the extent of your idea of musical talent is writing "tunes" and melodies/harmonies and probably things like "should I play an A minor chord here or an F major chord?" and noodling around the piano where the fingers happen to fall and editing it out with your ears, I don't doubt you think that.


> It can't hide that fact to me, but it probably can to you.


Please, don't flatter yourself.


----------



## Zeus

Couchie said:


> Better to be a creator of crap music than a critic without a single creative production to his name.


Not that I'm feeling alluded to, since I am a composer, but critics nurture genius and creators of crap music don't inspire anybody.


----------



## Torkelburger

Phil loves classical said:


> One can learn bits and pieces of music theory instinctively. Although not huge fans of Elfman and Zimmer, I think they do have some talent for being self taught. I just read about Zimmer yesterday after watching Planet Earth 2, that he regretted not having a formal education, cuz he feels himself more limited than other film composers. Depends on what you look for in music, self-taught may be enough for some.


He just wants to be a film composer, right? Write background music for movies? He's fine. Doesn't require extensive musical knowledge. A MIDI setup will do you just fine.


----------



## Zeus

Manok said:


> I just want to know the music is at least listenable. That's all I care about. I'm certain I'll never create a masterpiece. I just need some sort of encouragement.


You actually are on time... if you commit yourself, and follow the right leads, you can find yourself in a few years writing music you never thought you were capable of creating. All of this takes many hours of study a day, dedication, passion, and concentration, and teaching from competent teachers. But you can achieve far more than you think.


----------



## Phil loves classical

From another thread on the subject of "baby" music.

Ludovico Einaudi - Nuvole Bianche





Childhood Memories - Brian Crain





Joe Hisaishi





Imperium Dekadenz


----------



## Czech composer

> This musicians without musical education has their own sound and style, so yes, they are much more original than students who are composing by learning from long time dated music.


This is false equivalence. You are comparing students with hadful of most succesful composers which happened to be uneducated. I read a lot of your posts and you are always using the the same few examples. vangelis, vangelis, vangelis, yanni, yanni, yanni, yanni, zimmer, zimmer vangelis, vangelis, yanni, zimmer... Personally i don´t have anything against these composers, but this is so akward. It seems almost like obsession. And do you realize how many bad uneducated composers are around?



> You either have or don't have talent for composing music.


Simple people use simple arguments. Sorry, but world is simply little bit complicated. (I know I am be kind of dicky here.)


----------



## Czech composer

I would realy like to know some other names. Are there more uneducated famous composers?


----------



## nikola

Czech composer said:


> This is false equivalence. You are comparing students with hadful of most succesful composers which happened to be uneducated. I read a lot of your posts and you are always using the the same few examples. vangelis, vangelis, vangelis, yanni, yanni, yanni, yanni, zimmer, zimmer vangelis, vangelis, yanni, zimmer... Personally i don´t have anything against these composers, but this is so akward. It seems almost like obsession. And do you realize how many bad uneducated composers are around?


You do realize how many bad educated composer are around?



Czech composer said:


> Simple people use simple arguments. Sorry, but world is simply little bit complicated. (I know I am be kind of dicky here.)


His opinion is not "complicated world". It's just a nonsense. Nonsense doesn't deserve anything more than simple answer.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> From another thread on the subject of "baby" music.
> 
> Ludovico Einaudi - Nuvole Bianche
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Childhood Memories - Brian Crain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Hisaishi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imperium Dekadenz


It's not about how simple music is, but how challenging to listen to and deep it is on emotional level. I'm not fan of Einaudi or any of such piano music because it is mostly derivative and generic and you can hear something like that from almost any other youtube user. 
On the other hand, music from guys here is also derivative, empty and generic, but more complex, so you can pretend that you're better composers because of "musical education". The truth is that you also mostly all suck. The irony is that Einaudi actually has musical education. Yanni doesn't have, so yet, he's better and more impressive composer, but you would never understand that because to you music is something like mathematic, so instead 2+2=4 you rather want to hear something like 2+3-1=4.
It's still 4 = crap.


----------



## Vasks

nikola said:


> On the other hand, music from guys here is also derivative, empty and generic, but more complex, so you can pretend that you're better composers because of "musical education". The truth is that you also mostly all suck. The irony is that Einaudi actually has musical education. Yanni doesn't have, so yet, he's better and more impressive composer, but you would never understand that because to you music is something like mathematic, so instead 2+2=4 you rather want to hear something like 2+3-1=4.
> It's still 4 = crap.


Forget TC composers for a moment. Which *living* contemporary Classical music composers that are performed by world renown Classical music artists, recorded by major Classical labels, published by major companies and receive prestigious awards for their work do not write "*crap*"? Name a couple whose work you love and admire.

Meanwhile, since you seem so sure of your critical opinion and you too compose, does your music suck?


----------



## nikola

Vasks said:


> Forget TC composers for a moment. Which *living* contemporary Classical music composers that are performed by world renown Classical music artists, recorded by major Classical labels, published by major companies and receive prestigious awards for their work do not write "*crap*"? Name a couple whose work you love and admire.


No one.



Vasks said:


> Meanwhile, since you seem so sure of your critical opinion and you too compose, does your music suck?


No, my music is the greatest. The thing is, I'm an amateur who is composing music for his own enjoyment, so honestly, I don't care.

I hope I answered all your questions.


----------



## Czech composer

nikola said:


> No one.


Try these guys. I think there is a little chance you´ll like it. All of this are movie soundtracks. I consider it contemporary classical music too.
Each example is from different composer and everyone with formal music education. But don´t take this as a proof of superiority of educated composer. I partly agree with you, that talent is also important. I only realy hate generalization.

How to train your dragon - John Powell





Avatar suite - James Horner 





Peter Pan - James Newton Howard





Narnia - Harry Gregson-Williams





Howard Shore - Lord of the Rings


----------



## nikola

Czech composer said:


> Try these guys. I think there is a little chance you´ll like it. All of this are movie soundtracks. I consider it contemporary classical music too.
> Each example is from different composer and everyone with formal music education. But don´t take this as a proof of superiority of educated composer. I partly agree with you, that talent is also important. I only realy hate generalization.
> 
> How to train your dragon - John Powell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar suite - James Horner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Pan - James Newton Howard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Narnia - Harry Gregson-Williams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howard Shore - Lord of the Rings


I don't think that any "serious" composer from this board would consider this to be classical music. 
To me, labels are not important. It can be pop, classical, folk. I really don't care about that. I want to feel music and enjoy in it.

Music from links you sent is fine and some pieces are interesting and effective for movies, but it's still mostly predictable Hollywood music. I actually do love many film music. However I'm pretty much disappointed with Shore's LOTR music. It's appropriate for movie, but beside Hobit theme it's mostly pompous and dramatic, yet very empty and without interesting musical ideas - to
From typical Hollywood orchestral music I like "Dances with Wolves" soundtrack.
My favorite composer is Ennio Morricone and this is small amount of movie music that I do like:

Morricone













He can be very versatile and experimental, but I don't intend to post his weird stuff only to indulge some mindsets here.

Badalamenti:





Elfman:









Nyman:





Vangelis (not film piece)





Yes, some of those are simple, but I still prefer composer who can say everything with 3 tones than composer who can't say anything with 100000 tones. 
I even like some minimalist music like Steve Reich's "Music for 18 musicians". 
I must feel music and be able to enjoy in it.

I like even Ligeti... pieces like 'Lux Aeterna' and 'Devil's Staircase" etc. 





I can't point finger on WHAT I like and why. I simply know while listening to piece is it saying something to me or not. 
I don't care if musician is educated or not. I can enjoy in Elfman music, but I can't in Shore's music and I even don't know is Shore musically educated. 
Music can be banal on much deeper levels than on mathematical and it's problem when someone can't hear that.


----------



## Zeus

nikola said:


> I'm pretty much disappointed with Shore's LOTR music. It's appropriate for movie, but beside Hobit theme it's mostly pompous and dramatic, yet very empty and without interesting musical ideas - too.


Well you've just outed yourself as a troll.


----------



## nikola

Zeus said:


> Well you've just outed yourself as a troll.


LOTR is music for either undemanding listeners or listeners who never actually heard truly great music.

So, I will share from Amazon one of rare objective reviews of that soundtrack:



> Alright, I have viewed the last 70 reviews, and except for a few "minor quibbles" over "missing tracks" and such, there were no actually anti-Shore reviews. This is quite possibly one of the most over-rated and derogatory musical scores of all time. It is obvious that those who gave positive feedback to this have NEVER listened to true choral music or real classical. To be perfectly honest, all "sung" tracks are completely ripped off of Carmina Burana (of which I am sure all you "Shore lovers" have never heard of). He has taken the very best of wonderful 19th and 20th Century composers, and remixed them with absolutley disastorous results. In fact, not only is this album an abomination, but the way it fits with the film is even worse. The reacurring themes grow irratating at times sounding like a comic book movie, and at others, sounding like expensive versions of music from Saturday morning cartoons. But I can't blame Peter Jackson-- he's tone def!! This is great music to those who know nothing about it-- and to those who say "well it won 2 Acadamy Awards for best score", I tell them this "Titanic won 11". So just shut up about this being a "visionary score." In about ten years it will blow over. However, PJ's masterpiece will remain in history forever (hopefully with a different score).


----------



## nikola

The worst thing about LOTR music is that it is completely uninspired on melodic and harmonic level, yet suitable for movie with its overblown and dramatic 2 tone choir screaming.


----------



## Czech composer

nikola said:


> I don't care if musician is educated or not. I can enjoy in Elfman music, but I can't in Shore's music and I even don't know is Shore musically educated.
> Music can be banal on much deeper levels than on mathematical and it's problem when someone can't hear that.


Music you´ve posted is great. I love Nyman and Morricone (both with music schools) and some Elfman. But then I don´t unerstand why you so vehemently arguing again education and agains finding systems (maybe mathematican) in music. 
I know that there are some smug pepole, who can be realy annoying, so it can provoke an angry reaction. But, dude, don´t go to their level. There are lot of educated humble people too.


----------



## Atomas

Never stop creating. This is very important for yourself at least. The process of creativity lets you grow up as the person and gives more colors for brain...


----------



## Zeus

nikola said:


> The worst thing about LOTR music is that it is completely uninspired on melodic and harmonic level, yet suitable for movie with its overblown and dramatic 2 tone choir screaming.


I'm sorry you find LOTR music uninspired. It's 2nd rate music, but lovely nonetheless.


----------



## nikola

Czech composer said:


> Music you´ve posted is great. I love Nyman and Morricone (both with music schools) and some Elfman. But then I don´t unerstand why you so vehemently arguing again education and agains finding systems (maybe mathematican) in music.
> I know that there are some smug pepole, who can be realy annoying, so it can provoke an angry reaction. But, dude, don´t go to their level. There are lot of educated humble people too.


I don't argue against musical education. I argue with people who disrespect great music only because it doesn't fit their 'superiority' parameters and with people who think that good music can be made ONLY through classical music education and theory. 
Ludovico Einaudi is classically educated musician, yet his music, especially his very early piano albums, sound worse and more derivative than what you can hear on youtube from amateurish new age composers. 
He has some interesting and even good pieces and I understand why many people love him, but he is still pretty much uninspired composer who base all of his piano music on all possible cliches. On the other hand, Yanni's piano music is actually able to make me feel something even though he doesn't have any musical education. The only difference there is talent and that actually means much more sometimes than musical education.

I don't care about how much complex piano piece is for example or how many tones are there. I only care about how musician put those tones together... do they tell me some story... do they work together at all... do they want me to feel something... or are they simply pretending they're emotional. 
I don't know why some piece work for me and the other one don't.

For example, this are 2 Einaudi's pieces and I don't feel anything while listening to those... I can't say it's bad or even weak... music is just ... there.. nothing more, nothing less:









And this are 3 Yanni piano pieces and with those it's quite the opposite... they're telling me a lot: 













Or listen to this gorgeous piano pieces by Morricone:













So, where lies the magic? Obviously not in mathematical rules. Sure, we can say that music is subjective thing and also end such conversations.


----------



## nikola

Zeus said:


> I'm sorry you find LOTR music uninspired. It's 2nd rate music, but lovely nonetheless.


I've heard so many film themes and soundtracks that LOTR really doesn't come even close to be one of better soundtracks to my taste.


----------



## Zeus

nikola said:


> I've heard so many film themes and soundtracks that LOTR really doesn't come even close to be one of better soundtracks to my taste.


I'm surprised you don't like Ludovico. To me he fits right in with your idols Yanni Zimmer Yiruma and the rest of the bunch.

Edit this is in response to the above post


----------



## nikola

Zeus said:


> I'm surprised you don't like Ludovico. To me he fits right in with your idols Yanni Zimmer Yiruma and the rest of the bunch.
> 
> Edit this is in response to the above post


You think that you know someone's taste by stupid generalizations?
Yiruma is mediocre new age composer who composed some nice tunes and nothing much more. I never said I am Yiruma fan. I never even mentioned him. You obviously didn't read my previous post, but you still must answer. 
I'm not fan of Einaudi. 
I'm also not fan of Zimmer. He's not even close to be one of my favorite composers. 
Once again you are showing that you're actually not able to hear the music. 
You even can't say anything meaningful. You can only show that you're tone deaf and closed minded smug who is out of arguments.


----------



## Zeus

nikola said:


> You think that you know someone's taste by stupid generalizations?
> Yiruma is mediocre new age composer who composed some nice tunes and nothing much more. I never said I am Yiruma fan. I never even mentioned him. You obviously didn't read my previous post, but you still must answer.
> I'm not fan of Einaudi.
> I'm also not fan of Zimmer. He's not even close to be one of my favorite composers.
> Once again you are showing that you're actually not able to hear the music.
> You even can't say anything meaningful. You can only show that you're tone deaf and closed minded smug who is out of arguments.


Your only argument is your music taste. Unlike you, we don't think music is purely objective. That's why you write senseless poetic metaphors like "hearing the music", without actually being able to defend your obvious weakness to commercial music.


----------



## nikola

Zeus said:


> Your only argument is your music taste. Unlike you, we don't think music is purely objective. That's why you write senseless poetic metaphors like "hearing the music", without actually being able to defend your obvious weakness to commercial music.


So, that's excuse for making bad music: "it's not commercial" :lol:


----------



## Zeus

nikola said:


> So, that's excuse for making bad music: "it's not commercial" :lol:


I'm sorry, where do you get that from?


----------



## nikola

Zeus said:


> I'm sorry, where do you get that from?


Don't be sorry. It's not your fault that you don't understand what you're actually saying. You obviously have weakness for bad music, but you're not able to defend it. 
Oh well..


----------



## Zeus

nikola said:


> Don't be sorry. It's not your fault that you don't understand what you're actually saying. You obviously have weakness for bad music, but you're not able to defend it.
> Oh well..


I never said great music is made great by not being commercial, or anything of the likes. You are just tergiversating my words on purpose, because you ran out of arguments (if you had any at all) to defend your music taste. Don't worry, everybody likes different kinds of music, you don't have to be sorry for liking Yanni.


----------



## nikola

I'm not sorry for liking anything and I gave a lot of arguments, but you probably didn't read them. Maybe you can't read. I don't know.


----------



## Zeus

nikola said:


> I'm not sorry for liking anything and I gave a lot of arguments, but you probably didn't read them. Maybe you can't read. I don't know.


I would prefer if we halted this argument on good terms. We're not going to agree any time soon.


----------



## nikola

Zeus said:


> I would prefer if we halted this argument on good terms. We're not going to agree any time soon.


Yeah, I love you too :kiss:


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> I don't argue against musical education. I argue with people who disrespect great music only because it doesn't fit their 'superiority' parameters and with people who think that good music can be made ONLY through classical music education and theory.
> Ludovico Einaudi is classically educated musician, yet his music, especially his very early piano albums, sound worse and more derivative than what you can hear on youtube from amateurish new age composers.
> He has some interesting and even good pieces and I understand why many people love him, but he is still pretty much uninspired composer who base all of his piano music on all possible cliches. On the other hand, Yanni's piano music is actually able to make me feel something even though he doesn't have any musical education. The only difference there is talent and that actually means much more sometimes than musical education.
> 
> I don't care about how much complex piano piece is for example or how many tones are there. I only care about how musician put those tones together... do they tell me some story... do they work together at all... do they want me to feel something... or are they simply pretending they're emotional.
> I don't know why some piece work for me and the other one don't.
> 
> For example, this are 2 Einaudi's pieces and I don't feel anything while listening to those... I can't say it's bad or even weak... music is just ... there.. nothing more, nothing less:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this are 3 Yanni piano pieces and with those it's quite the opposite... they're telling me a lot:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or listen to this gorgeous piano pieces by Morricone:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where lies the magic? Obviously not in mathematical rules. Sure, we can say that music is subjective thing and also end such conversations.


I think it Music must be a very subjective thing based on your comments, cuz Yanni is just as derivative as Einaudi. Howard Shore's LOTR is way more inspired than anything Yanni wrote.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> I think it Music must be a very subjective thing based on your comments, cuz Yanni is just as derivative as Einaudi. Howard Shore's LOTR is way more inspired than anything Yanni wrote.


That's exactly what I was saying. You simply can't hear or feel music and it's obviously from day one that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Even your own music is pretty much horrible and meaningless most of the time and it sounds like you really don't know what you're trying to do. Sorry.

Howard Shore's music for LOTR is nothing more than overblown and uninspired orchestral pastiche. If you could actually hear music you wouldn't talk nonsense all the time.


----------



## Zeus

nikola said:


> That's exactly what I was saying. You simply can't hear or feel music and it's obviously from day one that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Even your own music is pretty much horrible and meaningless most of the time and it sounds like you really don't know what you're trying to do. Sorry.
> 
> Howard Shore's music for LOTR is nothing more than overblown and uninspired orchestral pastiche. If you could actually hear music you wouldn't talk nonsense all the time.


What do you think about my music?   :kiss:


----------



## nikola

Zeus said:


> What do you think about my music?   :kiss:


I didn't listen closely, but from what I heard it sounds like something Morricone would compose for some psychedelic movie in period from early to mid 1970's.
So real and new classical music probably sounds dated these days


----------



## Zeus

nikola said:


> I didn't listen closely, but from what I heard it sounds like something Morricone would compose for some psychedelic movie in period from early to mid 1970's.


mmmmmm

have you heard the piano quintet?

And I suggest you try my improvisations: the number 5 (last one) on the video I posted I improvised it this morning. There's a funny climax at the end of it with pop harmonies, as a joke or jest to modern music.


----------



## nikola

Zeus said:


> mmmmmm
> 
> have you heard the piano quintet?
> 
> And I suggest you try my improvisations: the number 5 (last one) on the video I posted I improvised it this morning. There's a funny climax at the end of it with pop harmonies, as a joke or jest to modern music.


When I find time I will certainly give those a listen. Those are quite long pieces and you wouldn't want me to listen to them while I cook or watch TV.


----------



## Zeus

nikola said:


> When I find time I will certainly give those a listen. Those are quite long pieces and you wouldn't want me to listen to them while I cook or watch TV.


Okay, thanks!

I mainly joined this forum to share my works and get feedback, so I'm feeling a bit disappointed in the lack of comments, but I'll be patient! Haha


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> That's exactly what I was saying. You simply can't hear or feel music and it's obviously from day one that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Even your own music is pretty much horrible and meaningless most of the time and it sounds like you really don't know what you're trying to do. Sorry.
> 
> Howard Shore's music for LOTR is nothing more than overblown and uninspired orchestral pastiche. If you could actually hear music you wouldn't talk nonsense all the time.


Are those subjective statements?


----------



## Larkenfield

Manok said:


> I get next to no feedback on any of my music. If I do, it never makes me feel good. The feedback usually is. "There isn't enough development." Or "There's too much development. " Or any one of a hundred things that make a piece of music not work at all. So, I'm thinking of just giving up entirely, because what's the point in creating things if they're no good?


Whether you continue to write or not in the future, there's still no reason not to learn as much about it as you can. There's a grammar to music just like there's a grammar to writing. What if a writer didn't know the difference between an adverb and a verb, or active or passive voice, or sentence structure? To know more gives one confidence and a better chance of writing something that's worth hearing, not just based on inspiration only or flying by the seat of one's pants. But to stop learning about it when you obviously love it, would mean that you never find out how good you could actually be, even if you feel your work is not being appreciated now. In other words, it helps to know certain compositional principles to effectively shape your ideas. The idea really is to not write anything that breaks the mood of the original idea. Knowing what not to write is just as important, and knowledge of the principles can help you avoid making those mistakes that make your music less enjoyable. Music is more than just about talent. Even Mozart studied his *** off throughout his life to get better. Fascinating resource: http://www.musicnovatory.com/index.html


----------



## Phil loves classical

Not everyone will have the same views on music, as you can see from this thread, so I think just write what you like, but it should be based on at least some basic musical idea, so it could actually stand on its own.

I would say the only “don’t” is to force the music into being something it is not, or trying to force emotion into a piece which is not actually there in the notes.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> Are those subjective statements?


There is a difference between meaningful musical idea (Yanni's piano pieces) and meaningless noodling without musical construction, yet pretending to be emotional (Einaudi's piano pieces I posted), so no, that is not subjective opinion. If you're able to actually hear music, I wouldn't need to explain that to you. 
Even you could compose like Einaudi, but you wouldn't be able to compose like Yanni. From the first tone, Yanni's musical ideas are crystally clear and properly developed. His piano melodies/harmonies have strong construction and also spark, atmosphere and emotion that piano music should have. 
On the other hand Einaudi is simply rolling some basic new age arpeggios that are most of the time simply banal and musically uninteresting to listen to. He actually isn't much of composer, but to untrained or tone deaf ear or to someone without sensibility to actually hear, understand and FEEL music that all sound the same.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> There is a difference between meaningful musical idea (Yanni's piano pieces) and meaningless noodling without musical construction, yet pretending to be emotional (Einaudi's piano pieces I posted), so no, that is not subjective opinion. If you're able to actually hear music, I wouldn't need to explain that to you.
> Even you could compose like Einaudi, but you wouldn't be able to compose like Yanni. From the first tone, Yanni's musical ideas are crystally clear and properly developed. His piano melodies/harmonies have strong construction and also spark, atmosphere and emotion that piano music should have.
> On the other hand Einaudi is simply rolling some basic new age arpeggios that are most of the time simply banal and musically uninteresting to listen to. He actually isn't much of composer, but to untrained or tone deaf ear or to someone without sensibility to actually hear, understand and FEEL music that all sound the same.


Maybe you are not getting the hint, but as Zeus pointed out your views are not consistent. You like one thing and hate something similar, and say things which in your view is justified, which don't hold in the bigger picture. Music is not really that mystical, and what makes sense or doesn't to the listener depends on the listener's abiliy, or else may be based on some musical concept, which holds whether or not the listener accepts it, but can train their ears to hear. Otherwise everything is subjective as your view on feeling music and ears.

In other words, music itself is not created in a vacuum, although musical opinions, may be.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> Maybe you are not getting the hint, but as Zeus pointed out your views are not consistent. You like one thing and hate something similar, and say things which in your view is justified, which don't hold in the bigger picture. Music is not really that mystical, and what makes sense or doesn't to the listener depends on the listener's abiliy, or else may be based on some musical concept, which holds whether or not the listener accepts it, but can train their ears to hear. Otherwise everything is subjective as your view on feeling music and ears.


There isn't something "similar" except maybe considering "style" of those 2 musicians. Both Beethoven and Schubert composed classical music, right? Does that mean that their music is completely the same? No, it isn't. It can be very similar sometimes, but it's not the same. They're different people and different people compose different music. 
In classical music there is sometimes much more sameness in music and even loss of any identity of musician who tries so hard to follow all rules than in today's music since there are no rules anymore and musicians can express themselves freely.
Music is pretty much objective thing in many things, but to be objective, people must have certain capabilities to be able to criticize anything. Every song or piece has it's good and bad sides. Quality of music doesn't depend on its genre. It depends on many other things. Sure, there are some genres that can spit out much more crap than some other genres. but every musician is different. 
Sure there are many talentless musicians who all sound the same, but Yanni and Einaudi are perfectly WRONG example for that.

To you music isn't anything mystical because you probably can't hear anything mystical in it. I can. You can probably recognize only certain genres between musicians. I can recognize much more differences. 
To be able to compose meaningful and soulful piano piece you must have a talent, so there is actually a big difference between Einaudi and Yanni. Even if I didn't know which composition is from which composer it wouldn't be any problem for me to distinct obvious differences between them. To put it simply, some music is great, some music is mediocre and some music is bad. There are many reasons why some piece is better than the other piece. 
Of course, subjective taste does exist, but most of the time GREAT music is great because many people will like it for decades and centuries. There is a reason why some classical music is considered to be the most popular unlike many other classical pieces. The reason for that is not in mathematical equations. The reason for that is in experience that music brings.
To you Mozart's "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" is probably almost exactly the same thing like all of his other serenades. The truth is - it isn't. EKN is actually pretty much catchy, likeable, brilliant and better than most of his other serenades. That's why it's still so popular and known even among the people who don't listen to classical music.

I explained above why Yanni actually is much better composer than Einaudi.
Einaudi music mostly lacks any stronger melodic idea and even if there is some, it's still pretty much uninteresting. 
I actually like his "Nightbook" album and I think it's his only good album to me, but still don't listen to it.

You can also hear Valentina Lisitsa playing Michael Nyman music.
It's mostly very simple and minimalist music, but it has much more depth than anything Einaudi ever composed.
You think that talent and sensibiltiy for music is something non-existent, so anybody can become great composer by starring at music theory. Ok, you can always comfort yourself like that.


----------



## Phil loves classical

"I explained above why Yanni actually is much better composer than Einaudi."

You explained why you think Yanni is a much better composer than Einaudi. 

"To you Mozart's "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" is probably almost exactly the same thing like all of his other serenades."
You think that talent and sensibiltiy for music is something non-existent, so anybody can become great composer by starring at music theory. "

No, not to me. Talk about putting ideas into others heads 

"You can also hear Valentina Lisitsa playing Michael Nyman music.
It's mostly very simple and minimalist music, but it has much more depth than anything Einaudi ever composed."

I agree.


----------



## Vasks

It is rather odd that nikola thinks he's being objective when in fact he's being subjective with his opinions. And where does he get the notion about contemporary Classical music being based on mathematics? Very few ever do. And is it not curious that many of us can agree that certain music has depth to it and yet there's no way to explain depth objectively.


----------



## Czech composer

Nikola. I don´t know why, maybe its because you met some bad person or something else, but I have an impression you´ve became the type person you seem to hate the most: "self-righteous music fascist"
You disagree with me for example that Yanni is better than Enaudi? Well so you don´t understand music in the slightest and your music suck.... WHAT?

I think it would be superfunny watch the debate between you and for example Pierre Boulez. One of you would be dead after this debate


----------



## nikola

Vasks said:


> It is rather odd that nikola thinks he's being objective when in fact he's being subjective with his opinions. And where does he get the notion about contemporary Classical music being based on mathematics? Very few ever do. And is it not curious that many of us can agree that certain music has depth to it and yet there's no way to explain depth objectively.


I actually gave arguments. When you say 'he's not being objective' that's actually not argument at all. 
Sure, you can't explain depth if you don't want to, but if you want you can call a talent when someone is able to compose something meaningful, interesting and impressive on melodic/harmonic level.


----------



## nikola

Czech composer said:


> Nikola. I don´t know why, maybe its because you met some bad person or something else, but I have an impression you´ve became the type person you seem to hate the most: "self-righteous music fascist"
> You disagree with me for example that Yanni is better than Enaudi? Well so you don´t understand music in the slightest and your music suck.... WHAT?
> 
> I think it would be superfunny watch the debate between you and for example Pierre Boulez. One of you would be dead after this debate


I don't hate anyone. I don't think that tone deafness and lack of sensibility to hear, feel and understand music is something to hate. It's actually really sad.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> I don't hate anyone. I don't think that tone deafness and lack of sensibility to hear, feel and understand music is something to hate. It's actually really sad.


I think your ear is not trained to accept modern disonnance. I grew up playing a lot of Bartok, since my teacher was Hungarian, and although I hated the sound, it really sunk deep inside me. But I also keep an ear on melodic tonal music.

Check this out


----------



## Vasks

Phil, Phil, Phil

Why do you post complex mathematical crap?

Please, in the future, post simple, soothing tonal selections 

LOL!!!!


----------



## Room2201974

Manok said:


> I get next to no feedback on any of my music. If I do, it never makes me feel good. The feedback usually is. "There isn't enough development." Or "There's too much development. " Or any one of a hundred things that make a piece of music not work at all. So, I'm thinking of just giving up entirely, because what's the point in creating things if they're no good?


Malcolm Gladwell in his book _Outliers_ talks about the 10,000 hour rule, that it takes at least 10,000 hours of doing something before you can begin to gain some mastery. That rule applies to everyone, whether it be Bill Gates learning to code as a teen, or The Beatles playing eight hours a night at their five Hamburg in residences. So my question is, and it's a rhetorical one; where are you on the 10,000 hour continuum? I started writing when I was 12. I didn't write anything worth a damn until I was 24. That's how long it took me to break 10,000 hours.

And a story.

The old and wise composition teacher leaned closer to his two students in seminar. He asked them three questions in a quiet and friendly manner:

Can you think of a time in the future when you are not writing?
When you are in the middle of writing and the ideas are coming, can you turn it off? Can you make your mind stop composing?

You need not answer those questions here. You just need to answer them to yourself.

The first and only person whose opinion ultimately matters is yours.


----------



## paulc

Hey Manok, don't give up. Post some links to your music here!

I saw this thread and tried to search for older posts of yours with the intention of giving feedback on your tunes. All I could find was 'How to write music for a woman?' (lol) and other generic questions, with no music (?).

Let's hear it.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> I think your ear is not trained to accept modern disonnance. I grew up playing a lot of Bartok, since my teacher was Hungarian, and although I hated the sound, it really sunk deep inside me. But I also keep an ear on melodic tonal music.


When did I say that I don't like dissonant music? Dissonance can be used in many great ways. 
Even though dissonance mostly fits in some porn-horror movies or surreal european cartoons from 1960's-70's it is still important part of musical history and it can be used even in many tonal pieces in interesting ways. 
The problem is not in dissonance, but in composers who probably don't know how to use it in meaningful way.


----------



## nikola

Vasks said:


> Phil, Phil, Phil
> 
> Why do you post complex mathematical crap?
> 
> Please, in the future, post simple, soothing tonal selections
> 
> LOL!!!!


You can see in my soul just like nuclear reactor. From now on I want only tunes like this one:


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> When did I say that I don't like dissonant music? Dissonance can be used in many great ways.
> Even though dissonance mostly fits in some porn-horror movies or surreal european cartoons from 1960's-70's it is still important part of musical history and it can be used even in many tonal pieces in interesting ways.
> The problem is not in dissonance, but in composers who probably don't know how to use it in meaningful way.


Then what constitutes "interesting ways" would be up to the listener. Some composers don't ease up the dissoannt melodies with catchy rhythms, or hooks, but want to force some unusual interrelationships of tones on the listener, who may be unprepared to hear them. There are many different uses of dissonance.

Music doesn't always need to be emotional either. There really are no boundaries. it sounds you aremtrying to enforce some. From my own perspective I like to stretch my own expectations as a listener in some of my music, which is why I never really took your strong comments too personally


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> Then what constitutes "interesting ways" would be up to the listener. Some composers don't ease up the dissoannt melodies with catchy rhythms, or hooks, but want to force some unusual interrelationships of tones on the listener, who may be unprepared to hear them. There are many different uses of dissonance.
> 
> Music doesn't always need to be emotional either. There really are no boundaries. it sounds you aremtrying to enforce some. From my own perspective I like to stretch my own expectations as a listener in some of my music, which is why I never really took your strong comments too personally


There are no boundaries? For someone who wants to stick strictly to classical music theory to say something like that is pretty much in contradiction with that kind of mindset. 
Unless you think that there are no boundaries after you learn all musical theories. That means that you actually start learning music with boundaries, so you can't free yourself from those for the rest of your life.
You are right, some composers don't ease up the dissonant melodies with catchiness, rythms or hooks and some composers are so bad that that is their only argument while composing really terrible music that is even bad for dissonant music. 
I don't think that music should be strictly emotional. I was talking about music that is trying to be emotional, but it fails on many levels. 
But also, music can be emotional on many levels. 
Gustav Mahler's "Adagietto" is one of the most emotional pieces ever (to me), but I also find Mussorgsky "Night on Bald Mountain" to be emotional too in a completely different way. Mozart's "Requiem" is also emotional. 
Some pieces are simply very interesting to listen to even though they may not be strictly emotional, for example:













No need to find excuses for bad music


----------



## Zeus

All music is emotional


----------



## nikola

Zeus said:


> All music is emotional


Especially bad music. It always gets me very emotional.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> There are no boundaries? For someone who wants to stick strictly to classical music theory to say something like that is pretty much in contradiction with that kind of mindset.
> Unless you think that there are no boundaries after you learn all musical theories. That means that you actually start learning music with boundaries, so you can't free yourself from those for the rest of your life.
> You are right, some composers don't ease up the dissonant melodies with catchiness, rythms or hooks and some composers are so bad that that is their only argument while composing really terrible music that is even bad for dissonant music.
> I don't think that music should be strictly emotional. I was talking about music that is trying to be emotional, but it fails on many levels.
> But also, music can be emotional on many levels.
> Gustav Mahler's "Adagietto" is one of the most emotional pieces ever (to me), but I also find Mussorgsky "Night on Bald Mountain" to be emotional too in a completely different way. Mozart's "Requiem" is also emotional.
> Some pieces are simply very interesting to listen to even though they may not be strictly emotional, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to find excuses for bad music


I don't know why you keep trying to push your limiting views on music theory. It applies to all music as I said before. A D chord is same in classical, pop, jazz, blues. A V-I-IV progression is same in all types of music. You seem to want to push you limiting views on music, so nobody should write something different than what you like? There is a certain context to all kinds of music. If you don't like the context (or get it) then obviously it would sound bad. If you think Yanni is one of the greatest 20th century composers, while I like Bartok, then obviously we'll run into differences.

Let's turn the heat over to you, for once. On dissonant music, some of your own harmonizations are very inconsistent, and don't work or resolve in tonal way, while you are trying to achieve that consonant tonality everywhere else. If you can't hear it, then just maybe your judgement is off the mark?


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> Especially bad music. It always gets me very emotional.


This kind of reminds me of the movie Misery, where the Kathy Bates character doesn't want a certain character to die in a story and got all distraught and forced the author to change it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Zeus said:


> All music is emotional


Including 4'33"? Cage's Music of Changes? Stockhausen and Music Concrete?


----------



## David OByrne

Phil loves classical said:


> Including 4'33"? Cage's Music of Changes? Stockhausen and Music Concrete?


Shut up thank you, keep your opinions to yourself


----------



## Phil loves classical

David OByrne said:


> Shut up thank you, keep your opinions to yourself


I don't see any problem with some kinds of music not having emotion. Doesn't mean it is not interesting. BTW, Isn't a music forum a place to express opinions?


----------



## David OByrne

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't see any problem with some kinds of music not having emotion.


There it is again, you are trying to assert that it doesn't when it does.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Check this out. Maybe it does to you, but it may not be the intent

https://www.theguardian.com/music/f...2015/dec/08/john-cage-interview-november-1989

this one is more interesting

http://mentalfloss.com/article/59902/101-masterpieces-john-cages-433

Stravinsky's own words

https://thinkingonmusic.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/objective-and-subjective-emotions-in-music/


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't know why you keep trying to push your limiting views on music theory. It applies to all music as I said before. A D chord is same in classical, pop, jazz, blues. A V-I-IV progression is same in all types of music. You seem to want to push you limiting views on music, so nobody should write something different than what you like? There is a certain context to all kinds of music. If you don't like the context (or get it) then obviously it would sound bad. If you think Yanni is one of the greatest 20th century composers, while I like Bartok, then obviously we'll run into differences.
> 
> Let's turn the heat over to you, for once. On dissonant music, some of your own harmonizations are very inconsistent, and don't work or resolve in tonal way, while you are trying to achieve that consonant tonality everywhere else. If you can't hear it, then just maybe your judgement is off the mark?


Nothing is the same. You think if it's same on the paper, it is same in reality? 
Considering your music, the problem is not in the style. The problem is in you.

Considering my music... someone who can't hear what's wrong with his music is not actually able to find problems in music that is composed simply by my ear that isn't tone deaf. 
I start and end my pieces where I want to. I don't want to achieve anything based on 'dissonance' or 'tonality'. My pieces sound exactly how I wanted them to sound. If you would actually be able to HEAR what you think that you can hear, you wouldn't compose pieces that actually can't work on so many levels and even sound dissonant when you don't want them to sound like that. 
You don't compose by ear and that is the main problem. If you can't hear the music, there is no need to pretend that theory will help you to make anything meaningful. :tiphat:


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> Check this out. Maybe it does to you, but it may not be the intent
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/music/f...2015/dec/08/john-cage-interview-november-1989
> 
> this one is more interesting
> 
> http://mentalfloss.com/article/59902/101-masterpieces-john-cages-433
> 
> Stravinsky's own words
> 
> https://thinkingonmusic.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/objective-and-subjective-emotions-in-music/


It seems to me that you don't understand what I was talking about. And I understand that you don't understand. You never will because to you music is something very banal no matter how much you try to prove otherwise with all those nonsense about 'theory' and 'dissonance'. 
You must understand primarily that your musical sketches are actually pretty much bad. You are not composing at all. What you're doing is trying to glue something together based on theory you are learning. You're reading from your sheets your own 'music' and it seems like you're torturing yourself. Your music sounds like it is in agonizing cramps and spasms trying to say something and yet it fails every time. You simply don't let music flow through you and you don't feel it. 
Music don't need to be emotional, but it must be at least decent. There are no rules. Nobody can teach you how to hear the music if you're not able to hear it. Music must be interesting to listen to. It must have some meaning on any level. People like Vangelis or Zimmer or Yanni are able even without any musical education to hear what's working and what does not. You can't. You think if musician composed some tones in known parameters that you can throw whatever tones in those same parameters and that your collection of tones are exactly good as of that musician.
No, things are not that banal. For example, there is a big difference between those 2 songs:









The first one is brilliant. The next one is derivative and uninspired crap. But to you - it's all the same. Why? Because you can't hear it. Magic lies in talent and not in your 'theories' that seems are only there to make you feel that your musical sketches are good, while in reality, they can't be further from that term.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> Nothing is the same. You think if it's same on the paper, it is same in reality?
> Considering your music, the problem is not in the style. The problem is in you.
> 
> Considering my music... someone who can't hear what's wrong with his music is not actually able to find problems in music that is composed simply by my ear that isn't tone deaf.
> I start and end my pieces where I want to. I don't want to achieve anything based on 'dissonance' or 'tonality'. My pieces sound exactly how I wanted them to sound. If you would actually be able to HEAR what you think that you can hear, you wouldn't compose pieces that actually can't work on so many levels and even sound dissonant when you don't wanwt them to sound like that.
> You don't compose by ear and that is the main problem. If you can't hear the music, there is no need to pretend that theory will help you to make anything meaningful. :tiphat:


It may be news to you that not all my pieces are dissonant. And I do compose by ear, but reinforce with actual musical concepts, that is what composing is about. Yanni's music is basically improvisations, and cliche ridden. I'll be blunt here and say your music is without musical interest or meaning, though I can follow a certain narrative. Based on your comments and analysis, your listening level is quite primitive, and limited to more accessible music, but you don't seem to want to branch out or challenge yourself. Theory is only a tool, and no one can really hide behind theory as you suggest. When not understanding someone's music, or the principles they are based, one shouldn't really judge, since they are not equipped. I was in the same boat a long time ago, but I made the choice to step out and try to understand the concepts, and it changed my perspective on certain music. Music is rich and does not have to be linear/horizontal, Bartok pieces I posted. Your listening ability is limited to the linear level, based on all your views and comments and own music.

Remember you were the one ranting with anyone that say anything good about my music and that it was all phony, and you are obviously trying to limit what could be considered good, and resisting learning new concepts in music. I tried not to sound condescending in the past, but it seems you just want to prove yourself out by repeating the same thing, rather than find another way to attack, which would be more constructive.


----------



## Larkenfield

> Stravinsky's own words
> 
> https://thinkingonmusic.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/objective-and-subjective-emotions-in-music/


Stravinsky writes Petrushka that clearly portrays the longings and personality of Petrushka, and then 20 years later he says that "music is powerless to express anything." Sometimes even the composers seem not to understand what their music may actually be conveying. It sounds like he was caught in a great contradiction that he was trying to rationalize and talk himself out of. I'd also say that the Rite of Spring was clearly portraying the primal raw energy of nature and its volcanic rhythms coincided with the tribe being worked up into a frenzy before the human sacrifice-not exactly that music is powerless to express anything. He may have gotten frightened by what music could actually convey and then started to intellectualize later in life its power, scope and color that unfortunately began to shrink in size. While his music was still worth hearing, I found that hugely disappointing.


----------



## David OByrne

Nothing a composer or listener can say, can take the emotion out of music. All there is, is opinions; in Phil's case being "This doesn't appeal or move me much", which he equates to having no emotion. 

I loathe Mozart but I can't convince anyone that it has no emotion, even that it doesn't appeal or move me in any slight way at all and feels completely vapid and dry.


----------



## Phil loves classical

David OByrne said:


> Nothing a composer or listener can say, can take the emotion out of music. All there is, is opinions; in Phil's case being "This doesn't appeal or move me much", which he equates to having no emotion.
> 
> I loathe Mozart but I can't convince anyone that it has no emotion, even that it doesn't appeal or move me in any slight way at all and feels completely vapid and dry.


Not at all. All those examples I gave like Stockhausen, Cage, that I said is without emotion, is that emotion is not the goal. There are interesting concepts. Take Gesang der Junlinge by Stockhausen. To look for emotion in that music, rather than listening to the sounds/music, flow and organization is missing the point. As also with Varese, and again my favourite, Bartok. What Cage was saying is music is transcends the emotions we derive from the music. I used to look for emotion in music, since that is what was meaningful to me, but now I listen to the music itself, with emotional barriers. I think that is what Cage and Stravinsky were getting at. Stravinsky said somewhere else we can enjoy music at a much higher level without reducing music to emotions.

On other hand, Romanticism stresses emotion more, like Chopin, but even some of his less popular pieces are more focussed on other musical concepts.


----------



## nikola

David OByrne said:


> Nothing a composer or listener can say, can take the emotion out of music. All there is, is opinions; in Phil's case being "This doesn't appeal or move me much", which he equates to having no emotion.
> 
> I loathe Mozart but I can't convince anyone that it has no emotion, even that it doesn't appeal or move me in any slight way at all and feels completely vapid and dry.


It is pretty much true that Mozart's music is mostly without emotion, especially if someone is forced to go through all of his million pieces they will find his music very much formulaic and derivative. That's what early classical music (and most of the rest of classical music) was. But I do love some of his best work, incliding this piece:


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> It may be news to you that not all my pieces are dissonant. And I do compose by ear, but reinforce with actual musical concepts, that is what composing is about. Yanni's music is basically improvisations, and cliche ridden. I'll be blunt here and say your music is without musical interest or meaning, though I can follow a certain narrative. Based on your comments and analysis, your listening level is quite primitive, and limited to more accessible music, but you don't seem to want to branch out or challenge yourself. Theory is only a tool, and no one can really hide behind theory as you suggest. When not understanding someone's music, or the principles they are based, one shouldn't really judge, since they are not equipped. I was in the same boat a long time ago, but I made the choice to step out and try to understand the concepts, and it changed my perspective on certain music. Music is rich and does not have to be linear/horizontal, Bartok pieces I posted. Your listening ability is limited to the linear level, based on all your views and comments and own music.
> 
> Remember you were the one ranting with anyone that say anything good about my music and that it was all phony, and you are obviously trying to limit what could be considered good, and resisting learning new concepts in music. I tried not to sound condescending in the past, but it seems you just want to prove yourself out by repeating the same thing, rather than find another way to attack, which would be more constructive.


No, your music is simply bad. I already explained why. Even Vasks confirmed you once that one of your pieces is completely terrible and meaningless while you were thinking it is your best. 
I don't need to limit your music because your music speaks for itself. If you don't want to improve, that is okay. You probably couldn't even if you would try. If composing those sketches makes you happy, that is the most important, but don't pretend that those pieces show anything more than lack of musical talent and that is obvious to me by listening to almost every one of your pieces. You did have maybe a moment or two of more decent ideas, but even as a composer you probably couldn't recognize those. 
Don't compare your pieces to Bartok. His pieces have strong base, construction and musicality behind it.

When someone is composing bad music, he really doesn't have credibility to crizicize anything else. I'm not saying that your music should be perfect or even good, but it fails on so many levels that it's even useless to talk about it. Usually, there is no need to be so harsh, but you are so deluded and you're forcing so much your nonsense that someone actually must tell you this.

EDIT:
Just listening to some of your music. If those are study sketches, ok then, but how will you ever express yourself if your music will always sound like worse version or bad copy or dissonant version of dissonance of what everybody else already composed more than half century ago? There is no vision in your music. It would be better to compose something 'more simple', but with real strength than to torture listeners with these cacophonic masturbations that are not as nearly good as you think they are. 
Find story in your head, find chords that actually WORK together (tonal or atonal) and then make something out of it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

nikola said:


> No, your music is simply bad. I already explained why. Even Vasks confirmed you once that one of your pieces is completely terrible and meaningless while you were thinking it is your best.
> I don't need to limit your music because your music speaks for itself. If you don't want to improve, that is okay. You probably couldn't even if you would try. If composing those sketches makes you happy, that is the most important, but don't pretend that those pieces show anything more than lack of musical talent and that is obvious to me by listening to almost every one of your pieces. You did have maybe a moment or two of more decent ideas, but even as a composer you probably couldn't recognize those.
> Don't compare your pieces to Bartok. His pieces have strong base, construction and musicality behind it.
> 
> When someone is composing bad music, he really doesn't have credibility to crizicize anything else. I'm not saying that your music should be perfect or even good, but it fails on so many levels that it's even useless to talk about it. Usually, there is no need to be so harsh, but you are so deluded and you're forcing so much your nonsense that someone actually must tell you this.
> 
> EDIT:
> Just listening to some of your music. If those are study sketches, ok then, but how will you ever express yourself if your music will always sound like worse version or bad copy or dissonant version of dissonance of what everybody else already composed more than half century ago? There is no vision in your music. It would be better to compose something 'more simple', but with real strength than to torture listeners with these cacophonic masturbations that are not as nearly good as you think they are.
> Find story in your head, find chords that actually WORK together (tonal or atonal) and then make something out of it.


That was my rough version. Others liked the same piece after my revisions (glad to know you were paying attention  )Plus I did improve since then. You are just trying to lambast me, and turn the criticism away from your music, to reinforce your own views. I have no doubt that someone writing music exactly like Bartok, you would also unknowingly lambast it. 1 bad reviewer noted, but also one who refuses to broaden his horizons. I actually write some music intentionally to challenge some tastes or directions of music, so far the feedback is not too bad , so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> That was my rough version. Others liked the same piece after my revisions (glad to know you were paying attention  )Plus I did improve since then. You are just trying to lambast me, and turn the criticism away from your music, to reinforce your own views. I have no doubt that someone writing music exactly like Bartok, you would also unknowingly lambast it. 1 bad reviewer noted, but also one who refuses to broaden his horizons. I actually write some music intentionally to challenge some tastes or directions of music, so far the feedback is not too bad , so I'll leave it at that.


There's no problem with my music. My music is Beethoven and Bach reincarnated in one! You can't improve perfection. 
Ok, jokes aside, as I said, I'm an amateur composer and I don't care much about other opinions because I have enough good ear to be aware of good and bad sides of my music. I also didn't compose anything for more than a year. If I will compose, I'll do it when I will find urge for it.

To me, the main problem with your music is that you don't find any strong or meaningful idea/motif, so you could build composition from there then. You should be really brilliant and skilled composer to compose something amorphous/formless (and I guess that is one of your intentions) so that could also sound meaningful.

Even with my own pieces that I love the most, I can always find some flaws. I'm not good enough pianist to play something really complex (I'm not pianist at all and I suck at playing), but such limitations will actually force me to compose something that will be meaningful, no matter how simple it may be. 
I don't look at music from technical or mathematical point of view. To me, music is experience. It is something that must be felt... and yes, it's something mystical. Some of my pieces I like more, some of those I like less. I was composing with only one thing on my mind - I want to like what I compose.

Am I subjective? Of course. We all are to extent and I wouldn't even compose my own amateurish/simplistic music if I wouldn't be able to be subjective. 
My music is all about idea and its development without the need to slaughter that idea. I'm simple and screwed man. I don't like majority of the music out there, but I still love a lot of music.
When I compose and when I hear motif that is promising, intuition does the rest. I can say that most of my pieces I didn't compose at all. I only helped them to resolve in their natural way. 
There are always some flaws, but mostly I'm satisfied with the results and if I'm satisfied, no other opinion is important.

And I have a feeling that you don't let your music to resolve like that. You're trying to achieve some "superiority" with your music on mathematical level and that is to me wrong mindset on so many levels.

These are some of my pieces that were mostly composed on their own and I was only a tool to help them do that.






















Those are all simple on technical level, but this one is so simple that infant could play it:





If there is even some dissonance in my music (and probably there is) I don't care... I don't have anything against dissonance as long as it sounds like it fits in my musical idea.

Is this dissonant piece? 



I don't know. Someone once told me it is. I really couldn't know and I really don't care as long as it does what I want it to do. It was one of my earliest pieces and today I would probably try to make it more colorful, but I do like dark music. I have more pieces that sound, at least to my ears, dark/dramatic and even desperate.

So, as you can probably hear, my mindset is completely different than yours considering composing. When I compose, I don't care about Bartok or Beethoven or Yanni. I want to compose something that is mine no matter how much it will be simple or crappy to someone else because I have enough good hearing to hear all virtues and flaws of my small amateurish pieces. They were never meant to shake the world. I also had enough reviews (mostly very good) from other people that I don't need more of those. I'm not even in the process of composing right now and I don't know if I will ever be again. 
The thing is, I probably should have been a musician, but I'm not. I touched synth/piano keys for the first time 3 years ago without any prior musical knowledge. That's it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^^ Whoa, that was a big change in your tone. Did you get an infraction or warning from the mods? :lol:

THere are different directions to go in music. I've been trying out some completely opposite directions and different styles, some more easy listening for someone I dedicate my music to geared to be shown to some friends, others geared to satisfy my own personal taste, which is at odds with most others I get to listen. But I can assure you there is no math involved in my compositions


----------



## nikola

Phil loves classical said:


> ^^ Whoa, that was a big change in your tone. Did you get an infraction or warning from the mods? :lol:


They told me that you're very lovable, so that I must love you... so, Here I am. 
No, I didn't here from them.



> THere are different directions to go in music. I've been trying out some completely opposite directions and different styles, some more easy listening for someone I dedicate my music to geared to be shown to some friends, others geared to satisfy my own personal taste, which is at odds with most others I get to listen. But I can assure you there is no math involved in my compositions


There are many directions in music. There is also big amount of both good and bad and mediocre music. 
World is saved at least from us here because nobody cares what we're composing.


----------



## paulc

Phil loves classical said:


> ^^ Whoa, that was a big change in your tone. Did you get an infraction or warning from the mods?


No, he didn't hear from the mods. That was just a hint of his 'Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde' personality. :lol:


----------



## nikola

I just found the story of Phil and me. It could be that I'm the reason why he plays dissonant stuff:


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

For someone criticizing lack of inspiration, your music certainly does sound like uninspired cliche'd formulaic garbage.


----------



## nikola

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> For someone criticizing lack of inspiration, your music certainly does sound like uninspired cliche'd formulaic garbage.


Just because you say so doesn't mean it's true. Actually, it's really something I would expect to hear from frustrated and untalented person that comes to this board with something so terrible like "Symphony 4 - Tempest" that sounds like dissonant mix of american Tom and Jerry cartoon and european surreal version. It is piece without any cohesive idea or at least atmosphere that would be meaningful. It's really just typical cacophonic piece of garbage that I would expect from some of members from this board whose music will actually never be anything more than nonsense brought by delusional mindset. If that's what you call an 'inspiration' you should really check your ears then.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

nikola said:


> Just because you say so doesn't mean it's true. Actually, it's really something I would expect to hear from frustrated and untalented person that comes to this board with something so terrible like "Symphony 4 - Tempest" that sounds like dissonant mix of american Tom and Jerry cartoon and european surreal version. It is piece without any cohesive idea or at least atmosphere that would be meaningful. It's really just typical cacophonic piece of garbage that I would expect from some of members from this board whose music will actually never be anything more than nonsense brought by delusional mindset. If that's what you call an 'inspiration' you should really check your ears then.


The fact you call it cacophonic reveals you haven't given it a listen, or at least a thorough one, as I am not a 20th mid-century style composer, but rather firmly rooted in between romantic and impressionist styles. Cacophony is characterized by a lack of harmony, or form. When I started writing this symphony, I decided to practice my newly learned composition techniques, such as classical form, and more conventional harmonies, but with my usual style. And there's this brilliance about music, there is no fact whether something is good or bad. Any fool who acts like their opinion is arbitrary fact is just that... a fool. I suggest you give your posts a read and imagine if someone was trying to shove that down your throat.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread is temporarily closed. Throughout the thread there have been many inappropriate comments that focus on members rather than post content. Please keep the thread civil.


----------

