# My 1st prelude



## beetzart

I wrote this today on Sibelius, and wonder what people think. All opinions welcome as that will aid me for future compositions. I will be putting the score on score exchange shortly if any wishes to view it.

Thank you


----------



## Ravndal

I can comment on the musicality of it, and i think it sounds a bit random. Did you just write it in sibelius, or have you played some of it on the piano?


----------



## beetzart

No, all done on sibelius.

This is the score:

http://www.scoreexchange.com/scores/129387.html


----------



## Ravndal

I'm not a composer, but i like to improvise on the piano. And i think, if you improvise upon that theme, you can get a better result than just writing things down.


----------



## jani

yea, it sounds kinda random. But i loved the dynamics.


----------



## nicecomposer

I liked it a lot

I didn't think it was overly random... as long as it sounds good then idc


----------



## Billy

I like this prelude much. I think that as a whole it sounds well balanced, and though I did find the second chord (in measure five) a little strange to my ears, the music is fun to listen to.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I thought the opening was great, but from after 0:25 I think you should have written some transitions between each new idea as the suddenness might throw the listener off a bit. Study some preludes by other composers too to see how they have structured their music.


----------



## beetzart

Thank you for all your input, it is duly noted. I do appreciate the 'suddenness' of parts can be somewhat odd, and future works will have smoother transitions, but I was trying to make the piece feel unsettled and possibly agitated.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Why does it have to sound as if it were written in the nineteenth century?

(I confess I only listened to 0:34, and that opening might be part of a post-modernist polystylistic approach, but somehow I doubt it.)


----------



## beetzart

Why not? 

Thanks for listening to 34 seconds, every little helps! There's no need to be sarcastic though.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

beetzart said:


> Why not?


Do you not have a more interesting, informative response?

I am genuinely interested why so many of the people who choose to share their compositions on this site adopt a style which is ultra-reactionary. Merely aping other people is at best insincere and your piece just seems to consist of rhetorical clichés culled from the styles of quite a wide timespan (so maybe it was unintentionally polystylistic after all). If you were writing a story, you wouldn't create it by extracting common phrases from Jane Austen novels, with bits of Dickens and Shelley thrown in, so why do the same in music? Be your own man, for heaven's sake.

The passage starting at 0:06 (and again at 1:42) surely needs correcting.


----------



## Henrique

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Do you not have a more interesting, informative response?
> 
> I am genuinely interested why so many of the people who choose to share their compositions on this site adopt a style which is ultra-reactionary. Merely aping other people is at best insincere and your piece just seems to consist of rhetorical clichés culled from the styles of quite a wide timespan (so maybe it was unintentionally polystylistic after all). If you were writing a story, you wouldn't create it by extracting common phrases from Jane Austen novels, with bits of Dickens and Shelley thrown in, so why do the same in music? Be your own man, for heaven's sake.
> 
> The passage starting at 0:06 (and again at 1:42) surely needs correcting.


Perhaps because one's aesthetic view need not necessarily be limited to pure originality at the cost of pleasure and beauty. While extracting ideas from past composers and using these to form a pasthiche of sorts is not necessarily comendable, atleast in my opinion, composing _in the style of a certain period_ certainly is if one finds that it is that language which is most beautiful.

What does it matter that the style is reactionary? That is not bad, it is a mere fact. I'd much rather listen to a piece written today in a reactionary style and which pleases me than spend time and effort trying to learn to appreciate something which I find absolute drivel. And do note that I am not agains't modernism - quite the opposite. If someone wants to write in a more avant-garde way, then do it. If I don't like it, I won't listen to it. If I do, I will. It comes down to personal taste - there is always an audience for everything.

Refering to your example, if someone wrote today, in a style similar to Victor Hugo's, for instance, an absolute masterpiece, would you refer to it as "merely aping" the great frenchman? I think that we both agree that copying someone's work and using parts of it is wrong. But using the same language, if you find that you like it the most, and that it is close to your idea of beauty, is not.


----------



## beetzart

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Do you not have a more interesting, informative response?
> 
> I am genuinely interested why so many of the people who choose to share their compositions on this site adopt a style which is ultra-reactionary. Merely aping other people is at best insincere and your piece just seems to consist of rhetorical clichés culled from the styles of quite a wide timespan (so maybe it was unintentionally polystylistic after all). If you were writing a story, you wouldn't create it by extracting common phrases from Jane Austen novels, with bits of Dickens and Shelley thrown in, so why do the same in music? Be your own man, for heaven's sake.
> 
> The passage starting at 0:06 (and again at 1:42) surely needs correcting.


Simply because I enjoy writing in quasi styles of past masters. I would though be interested to hear what your definition of originality is though. Maybe you have some compositions of your own I could listen to.

What about Michael Nyman's music? That contains a lot of aping; is that still insincere?


----------



## beetzart

I can't believe what a hypocrite you appear to be, Jeremy! Looking at this site of yours http://jeremy.marchant.com/index2.htm it shows that you are influenced by the composers that inspire you. So if it is ok for you, why not others?


----------



## nicecomposer

chalk it up to competitive bitterness


----------



## StevenOBrien

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Do you not have a more interesting, informative response?
> 
> I am genuinely interested why so many of the people who choose to share their compositions on this site adopt a style which is ultra-reactionary. Merely aping other people is at best insincere and your piece just seems to consist of rhetorical clichés culled from the styles of quite a wide timespan (so maybe it was unintentionally polystylistic after all). If you were writing a story, you wouldn't create it by extracting common phrases from Jane Austen novels, with bits of Dickens and Shelley thrown in, so why do the same in music? Be your own man, for heaven's sake.
> 
> The passage starting at 0:06 (and again at 1:42) surely needs correcting.


I can't answer for the other composers here, but as someone who writes in a fairly conservative style, I'll try to respond. It's not a case of actively trying to imitate the masters of the common era, I'm merely writing down the music that bounces around in my head. I see it more as a point of departure than something to master. I want to seek an original style that holds true to the aesthetics and values that I appreciate the most in the music I love, and I can't really find these in any contemporary style. The music of the late classical/early romantic eras speak to me more than the music of any other era, and it's the music I enjoy the most. I like a lot of music from other eras too, particularly contemporary minimalist music, late baroque and early 20th century music, and I don't try to fight off any influences from those eras that creep into my work

I really disagree with your claim that it's like extracting phrases from famous novels. An analog in music would be literally to extract phrases and melodies from Mozart and Beethoven sonatas and pad them out with generic filler material. In my opinion, you could only draw an analog if most contemporary literature was to contain difficult, descriptive and meandering language with very vague and ambiguous story lines (a lot of listeners to most contemporary music would claim this). This "reactionary" style you speak of would be an attempt to return to a style that is more clarified and accessible, and seeing as the music of the classical era/early romantic era is the best example we have of this, it's only natural for us to imitate it, but again, as I said earlier, I see it as a departure point.

That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with pure imitation either, especially for students. Just like any other new piece of music, it's a combination of notes that have never been heard together in that way before, so it is all original.



nicecomposer said:


> chalk it up to competitive bitterness


While I disagree with Jeremy somewhat, I doubt that's what motivated his comment >_>.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I don't see why it's bad for composer who's still starting out to write in previous styles. *People learn by imitation.* It is almost certain that if he wants to his music performed publicly later on Beetzart will find his own unique style anyway so there's no need to rush him now. His prelude isn't as well written as a prelude by Rachmaninov for example, but by imitating earlier music he can learn about it. There's no point in trying to write in your own modern style when you don't fully understand earlier styles and by studying and imitating earlier styles he will learn and become a better composer. I imitate the music of earlier composers and fairly modern composers because I want to put myself in their shoes to learn how they went about composing. Sometime in the future I will find my own style too.


----------



## nicecomposer

"the love of truth alone would never make one man attack another bitterly."

- charles darwin


----------



## beetzart

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I don't see why it's bad for composer who's still starting out to write in previous styles. *People learn by imitation.* It is almost certain that if he wants to his music performed publicly later on Beetzart will find his own unique style anyway so there's no need to rush him now. His prelude isn't as well written as a prelude by Rachmaninov for example, but by imitating earlier music he can learn about it. There's no point in trying to write in your own modern style when you don't fully understand earlier styles and by studying and imitating earlier styles he will learn and become a better composer. I imitate the music of earlier composers and fairly modern composers because I want to put myself in their shoes to learn how they went about composing. Sometime in the future I will find my own style too.


Thanks for your post. I have been composing on and off for over 20 years, and mainly it is for my own pleasure as I see it as a challenge or a puzzle, say. If I am currently listening to a particular composer my ideas tend to be influenced by them, plus I did realise a long time ago that I will never write a prelude as good as Rachmaninov, but I do understand what you mean. In a sense it is impossible or highly unlikely to not be influenced by past masters, after all they influenced each other to a point.

I did compose another prelude today, although sadly for some their influence didn't result in my taking a new direction by recording the sound of a brick scraping against an egg, or a feather going through a shredder! It is still quite past post ultra modernically mega reactionary.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

beetzart said:


> Thanks for your post. I have been composing on and off for over 20 years, and mainly it is for my own pleasure as I see it as a challenge or a puzzle, say. If I am currently listening to a particular composer my ideas tend to be influenced by them, plus I did realise a long time ago that I will never write a prelude as good as Rachmaninov, but I do understand what you mean. In a sense it is impossible or highly unlikely to not be influenced by past masters, after all they influenced each other to a point.
> 
> I did compose another prelude today, although sadly for some their influence didn't result in my taking a new direction by recording the sound of a brick scraping against an egg, or a feather going through a shredder! It is still quite past post ultra modernically mega reactionary.


Musique concrète is not the next step. :lol: Study Schoenberg's atonal contrapuntal technique, that will certainly get you writing some great stuff.  But anyway, I like your approach to composition seeing it as a puzzle for your own enjoyment. There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Ramako

Listening to it, I liked it. Although I failed to be convinced by some of the turns (figurative that is), mostly the beginning chords, that is fine. My biggest complaint was that I would have preferred a loud end rather than a quiet one. I loved the trick you played with the 'recap' around 2 mins, but I felt that the idea after that went on too long and could have been interrupted by loud chords which, in turn, the quietness had interrupted in the first place.

I thought the transitions were fine BTW


----------



## cihanbarut

Great opening. I find it stable as a baroque listener. Development sounds not connected to me - but all parts sound fine. No randomization noted


----------



## PetrB

beetzart said:


> Why not?


Because.

Because it is more clever-sounding than sounding as interesting music.

Listen to some neoclassical chamber and piano works (Stravinsky, Milhaud, Berio, Martinu, etc.)

The idea of taking the recognizable configurations or forms of yore and working those in a new vocabulary is not exactly new, but it can make for something much 'fresher' than your piece here.

Trouble with writing like this -- and there is a very fine line depending on how the piece goes and its harmonic content -- is that most often it ends up sounding like a parody (reverent or irreverent makes no difference.)

Rather than say the series of events in the piece sound random, I would say the choices you made sound "arbitrary." [ADD: if you are truly interested in improving both form and content, ditch Sibelius and write by hand. Computer and midi hookups allow for a veritable spew of ideas and music, faster than the creator can sort out wheat from chaff; too, the playback tends to so readily and deeply impress those same composers who do not play proficiently that their judgment as to what is being heard can be dimmed or shut off entirely.]

Your piece, more than anything with more genuine musical interest, sounds like a parody, not a tribute, nor a really new or fresh take on. It is too far from the model writing where you adhere strictly to the style of the era and not far enough away from that to be anything more 'individually yours.'

The most negatively disturbing thing about it to me, all technical excellence or flaws aside, is their is no sound of either a real person or personality in or behind this piece. That is a death-knell, no matter how you choose to write.

ADD: It is typical to write "à la manière de" - that route of exercise is common in undergrad theory, and has a purpose and great value.

Various fora comp sections may have anything from polished grad work to any and many sorts of 'other.' Of what I've checked in the TC composer's section, I've found, almost entirely, 'other.'

I more than expect to find here works of younger composer's trial balloons; comps by ardent amateurs who write as a hobby; maths freaks who are having a go at re-writing (they think) Bach, Webern, etc. All fine and good.

Does anyone have time for the comper who, once fairly criticized, immediately goes on the defensive -- because their work was not fully and or blindly admired? Is it necessary then to take any further time with the offended comper's counter-offensive of 'why what they are doing is valid.'

The notes work, have a distinct personality, or they don't.

The shock of the amateur - student being told their masterwork sounds, uh, amateur - student like. Oh the humanity.


----------



## PetrB

nicecomposer said:


> chalk it up to competitive bitterness


_You have *got* to be kidding._


----------



## PetrB

beetzart said:


> Simply because I enjoy writing in quasi styles of past masters. I would though be interested to hear what your definition of originality is though. Maybe you have some compositions of your own I could listen to.
> 
> What about Michael Nyman's music? That contains a lot of aping; is that still insincere?


Here is one successful way of going about working in a style of yesteryear: the greatest fault of yours lies in the 'quasi' ethic, if I may call it that - in the approach to music as you've done, 'quasi' is near synonymic with 'pseudo.'

Stravinsky~ Concerto in E-flat, 'Dumbarton Oaks.' in the spirit of the Bach Brandenburg Concerti - wholly apt, successful, and 'sincere.'





P.s. I have yet to find anything 'sincere' in any Michael Nyman


----------



## PetrB

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Do you not have a more interesting, informative response?
> 
> I am genuinely interested why so many of the people who choose to share their compositions on this site adopt a style which is ultra-reactionary. Merely aping other people is at best insincere and your piece just seems to consist of rhetorical clichés culled from the styles of quite a wide timespan (so maybe it was unintentionally polystylistic after all). If you were writing a story, you wouldn't create it by extracting common phrases from Jane Austen novels, with bits of Dickens and Shelley thrown in, so why do the same in music? Be your own man, for heaven's sake.
> 
> The passage starting at 0:06 (and again at 1:42) surely needs correcting.


I think those posters are not 'adopting a style' as much as working within their personal limits, i.e. what is presented is really at the limit of their working musical vocabulary.

Other than one or two composition students and the occasional true effort at making something with an original voice, the majority of composers postings here seem to be of this retro nature, i.e. time stopped and / or the maker is fascinated with Ravel, Chopin, Clementi, etc. and then writes that way.

Some of that, to these ears, either sounds like model writing ala undergraduate school (valid, sometimes fun) with the rest (the majority of it) sounding like less than interesting pastiche or inadvertently, a bad parody of.

It seems quite normal that any composer further along, or well on their way, would not be posting their music on a forum with a rag-tag collection of members from such varied musical backgrounds. So, it is student pieces and 'the other' that we get on TC: I'm certain that spread is quite similar on other 'open admissions' fora.

It might be better if the 'composer' section of TC had two categories --those in training who hope to become professional; all others -- but that would go against the somewhat politically correct flavor that 'everyone is equal,' each having an equally significant contribution to make, significant things to say.... a very popular tenet now taking on mythical proportions.


----------



## Mahlerian

If you want to write Beethoven/Rachmaninoff pastiche, that's fine with me. I wouldn't, and I wouldn't go out of my way to listen to such a thing, but feel free to compose as you wish. But I think I can explain why several people are calling your piece random sounding. Not only does it lack real transitions, its phrasing is incredibly haphazard. It's fine to use uneven phrase lengths (although if you want 19th century imitation, you should limit their usage to specific effect only), but you seem to be unaware of the disjointed sense of rhythm that you're creating by not sticking to any sort of pattern. It would make your music sound far less amateurish if you could work on that.


----------



## cihanbarut

it sounds like a variation of a theme i heard.. strange. You used Sibelius MIDI sounds i guess ? Better you download 4gb sound lib and that will change the whole issue.. MIDI always reminds me harpsichord on piano  Good luck !


----------



## beetzart

Mahlerian said:


> If you want to write Beethoven/Rachmaninoff pastiche, that's fine with me. I wouldn't, and I wouldn't go out of my way to listen to such a thing, but feel free to compose as you wish. But I think I can explain why several people are calling your piece random sounding. Not only does it lack real transitions, its phrasing is incredibly haphazard. It's fine to use uneven phrase lengths (although if you want 19th century imitation, you should limit their usage to specific effect only), but you seem to be unaware of the disjointed sense of rhythm that you're creating by not sticking to any sort of pattern. It would make your music sound far less amateurish if you could work on that.


Well thank you so much for allowing me these freedoms of expression. Yourself and PetrB can both F*** off!


----------

