# A Lesson on Criticism



## Capeditiea

It is really simple. I have gathered much on just the post of my first symphony. 

Don't negatively critisize work if you don't have enough information... because sometimes... here comes along someone who knows a lot more than you, who knows what they are writing about, who can tell you exactly the purpose of things...  

If you really want to critisize. 
1. Explore more composers. 
2. Look at their works objectively. (don't look at it in your personal preference.) you have no idea what inspired them to write it... or how long they have taken, unless they tell you them selves. 
3. Computer generated classical music never sounds how it is going to be performed because there is no expression. Live performances are what make a composition more genuine. 
4. You should also learn how much experience each composer has before giving them your possitive or negative review. 
5. NEVER ever relate someone's music to anothers. that is just disrespectful. 

Now i say this for the main reason of that several of you embark on tearing apart some composers. 

I have a strong fortitude towards criticism, because i plan it from the start. (even with this post so instead of doing what you normally do, sit back and think, why would this post be posted?)

I am not saying hey go on and compliment every single composer... no... i am simply stating the above... reread a few times till you understand. 

Thank You for your time reading and thinking about this...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I use electroshock therapy on those who criticise my work, I find it very effective...............


----------



## Capeditiea

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I use electroshock therapy on those who criticise my work, I find it very effective...............


:3 i just inform them of the things they missed. :3 which is quite boring compared to your idea. :3 great idea though.


----------



## Zeus

In my experience, I have found myself to learn quite a bit by criticising other compositions. In fact, one could say a composer is always criticising, always judging, questioning everything, in order to absorb the ideas that appeal more to them, and reject the ones that don't, or would fit under other circumstances. For example, as a cellist who has gone through half of Bach's Cello Suites, I've modified many notes and small passages, in a manner which I believe makes absolute sense, and improves some movements' musical discourse. This is a practice many would call “heresy”, but the truth is no composer is perfect. Of course, I'm not saying these changes are objectively better, but they are very much justified.

There is, when receiving feedback, the “this work is trash” approach some people take when criticising compositions from other students, or recognised composers. In this case, I believe the composer can take this comment in only one way or another: If the criticiser is a renowned musician, or someone who you aspire to move with your music, then you can take the comment as a sign of your failure to do so, and take another, more objective and harsh view on your work, and think why it didn't impress them (you should do this anyways, but even I'll admit sometimes I am too forgiving with myself). If, in the other hand, the person who writes this comment is somebody who you don't care about, who you can perceive knows very little, or just not the type of person you aimed to reach with your music, then you can just discard the comment happily, because it means nothing to you.

Finally, if you're the one criticising, I believe you should ask yourself why are you telling them what you tell them; is it to flex your dick with all your mighty musical knowledge? Is it because you have a genuine interest in teaching? Is it because you just like giving your honest opinion, or even just as an incentive to analyze a composition? In my experience, many people fall victim to the first category, which I believe is not necessarily bad (much of my drive I owe to the people who have taken considerable interest in embarking on egomaniac trips criticising my works).


----------



## Phil loves classical

I agree with the mighty Zeus. Also would add people have different ways of hearing, even the same person. Sometimes I write something I think makes perfect sensewith all the ideas/preconceptions still in my head which skews my outlook, then returning next day with fresh ears and notice stuff falling apart and doesn't sound in reality how I meant it to. Some criticisms are more suggestions to improve a piece which I always try out since I feel they are coming from someone who already underatands what I'm doing or have the exposure to that type of music. Some comments I can recognize stem from unfamiliarity with the style, which there isn't much I can do then.


----------



## Capeditiea

@Phil 
You tend to ask questions on things you don't understand as well... 

as for the familiarity or unfamiliarity part, not one individual can completely know every single composer (great or not) in their life time. That is just impossible. We tend to point towards our own personal preferences. Which is the main reason of this post.



@Zeus
Yes, i was hoping someone would mention it giving birth to more inspiration, because i do the same. 
But this is not about criticising the greats. (that is a great thing to do, because they teach us.) What i mean is critizing the younger new composers. 


To enumerate various things, i think, one should first and foremost critisize their own works to the point that they can predict what others would say... because just starting a completely new work is the hardest thing to do after getting near completion. so why not criticize it how others would see it? 
If you have that ability then you can learn this from the next work you do, so you can always perfect things as you go, because there are always mistakes, if there was never a mistake by a composer everyone would like their music. 


Beethoven's Fifth and Nineth are my least favourite symphonies i have listened to. (think on why i say this... but it is true.)


----------



## Sekhar

While I agree that critiques should be constructive, I just don't get why some folks post here and freak out when anyone offers even a hint of criticism. Why post here in "Today's Composers" then? Isn't that the point - to get critiqued? If this section's purpose is also to just showcase and share your compositions, that's fine...but I suggest TC then create a separate section for that so we just listen and enjoy.

Also, I completely disagree with the suggestion that we should look at the composer's experience/expertise/past works/etc. before critiquing. Doing so will strongly bias the judgment of the piece and defeat the purpose of the critique. If the critic is being clueless (like say confusing the structure, modulation, whatever), the composer can correct him, and we'll all be better from the exchange as we may have made the same mistake.

In any case, because creative works are always subjectively judged, IMO we composers must develop a thick skin and evaluate critiques for what they're worth and learn from them. Almost all the time a bad critique is better than no critique because it at the minimum gives us an idea of how our potential audience, some of whom may be just as uninformed, might feel about our work.


----------



## Zeus

Sekhar said:


> While I agree that critiques should be constructive, I just don't get why some folks post here and freak out when anyone offers even a hint of criticism. Why post here in "Today's Composers" then? Isn't that the point - to get critiqued? If this section's purpose is also to just showcase and share your compositions, that's fine...but I suggest TC then create a separate section for that so we just listen and enjoy.
> 
> Also, I completely disagree with the suggestion that we should look at the composer's experience/expertise/past works/etc. before critiquing. Doing so will strongly bias the judgment of the piece and defeat the purpose of the critique. If the critic is being clueless (like say confusing the structure, modulation, whatever), the composer can correct him, and we'll all be better from the exchange as we may have made the same mistake.
> 
> In any case, because creative works are always subjectively judged, IMO we composers must develop a thick skin and evaluate critiques for what they're worth and learn from them. Almost all the time a bad critique is better than no critique because it at the minimum gives us an idea of how our potential audience, some of whom may be just as uninformed, might feel about our work.


Can't agree more with everything you've said.


----------



## Capeditiea

Sekhar said:


> While I agree that critiques should be constructive, I just don't get why some folks post here and freak out when anyone offers even a hint of criticism. Why post here in "Today's Composers" then? Isn't that the point - to get critiqued? If this section's purpose is also to just showcase and share your compositions, that's fine...but I suggest TC then create a separate section for that so we just listen and enjoy.
> 
> Also, I completely disagree with the suggestion that we should look at the composer's experience/expertise/past works/etc. before critiquing. Doing so will strongly bias the judgment of the piece and defeat the purpose of the critique. If the critic is being clueless (like say confusing the structure, modulation, whatever), the composer can correct him, and we'll all be better from the exchange as we may have made the same mistake.
> 
> In any case, because creative works are always subjectively judged, IMO we composers must develop a thick skin and evaluate critiques for what they're worth and learn from them. Almost all the time a bad critique is better than no critique because it at the minimum gives us an idea of how our potential audience, some of whom may be just as uninformed, might feel about our work.


We do tend to develop a thick skin. :3 also we tend to learn to learn from it. :3 
 but some times composers (like my self) make mistakes on purpose just to test critics.  because that is my kind of Satire. I given up on trying to sound like everyone else... it is impossible for me to like my own works that sound like another... although, i have done several works that other works start sounding like my own for the first listen... and it scares me... since i wonder if i was them in a previous life... but that is never the case...

But i am curious more so on if one can develop better works if they were told what they did wrong... rather than, "Blah blah blah, it sounds like this or this."

i mean what is the real focal point to a composition? i mean it can sound great, it can sound horrid. it can sound consenant, it can sound dissonant... but that is as far as one should go into relating with others. I know of only a few who i sound like... (though half of them are not really my inspiration.)

When i initially listen to music, it is as background... unless it decides to overpower my focus. (very few works beyond my own have achieved this.) I also end up revisiting them as a focus point to see their chord compositions in my mind with a synthestasiaic (if that can be a word) value. I tend to see chords as they are played. the Third time is when i see imagry. If one of the latter two fail my synthestasia, then it wouldn't matter much to me. I usually can feel if the music is living. So I go by this, not by how it sounds.

But really to compose, one must know a few key factors. 
1. How each instrument sounds. 
2. How each instrument's voice couterpoints with another. (in every combination.) i.e. timpani and cello, timpani and violin, timpani and etc, etc and etc. 
3. How the progressions of qauvers, semiquavers, and further can sound. How they are related with the development of the work.

Looking at works subjectively and critiquing is similar to having your views shoved down the neophyte composer. Which then give them less reason to learn from or listen to your works.

But to finish, the main thing a composer should look at is the scores. that is where things are more important. 
Half of the folk here that compose larger pieces tend to show off with computer generated sound, which almost always gives off an incorrect procession of value. Since there are various levels of differences.
1. the violin never sounds like a violin... 
2. the horns very rarely sound breathy enough. 
3. the trumpet and clarinet is always far too loud (even when turning it down...) 
4. the timpani isn't loud enough.
5. the strings in a symphonic setting can sound the same. 
6. the violin 1 and violin 2 are basically on the same wavelength, so they other sound the same instrument. 
7. the viola in the higher octave sounds like the violins in the lower octave. 
8. the sound of having several instruments playing at once drowns the quality out almost entirely. 
9. the piano is horrid yet realistic. but you cannot put individual emphasis on each note... as it would be like playing the authentic grand. 
...those are the main points.

this is why the score is far more important. 
Or are you all telling me that computer generated sound will be the end of the Classical genres? because "they sound too similar?"

I dare you to look at my scores and compare to the music... 
with this in mind... i don't seek your critisism here... put it on the symphony post... this is simply to embark on teaching Criticism.


----------



## Bulldog

I feel that trying to place conditions on criticism is pretty ridiculous as well as arrogant. If you put your work out there, you have no control over the feedback.


----------



## Phil loves classical

The way I see it is there is no problem for a listener in applying criticism based on his/her own understanding of basic music theory. Composers can invent new techniques, etc., but are not immune to theory themselves. If someone uses common practice theory for modern music, then a lot of things pointed out won't apply, but there are some basic principles or good practices common to any music system, not only Western. A composer can't really invent their own theory or system in a vacuum and expects others to hear the same way. There are casual effect relationships pre-existing.


----------



## Capeditiea

Phil loves classical said:


> The way I see it is there is no problem for a listener in applying criticism based on his/her own understanding of basic music theory. Composers can invent new techniques, etc., but are not immune to theory themselves. If someone uses common practice theory for modern music, then a lot of things pointed out won't apply, but there are some basic principles or good practices common to any music system, not only Western. A composer can't really invent their own theory or system in a vacuum and expects others to hear the same way. There are casual effect relationships pre-existing.


And the more advanced techniques? like controlled dissonance, or influence of time fluctuations? most folk cannot pinpoint this with a basic understanding or personal forte, i am a perfect example of this.  i love dissonance, also i love influencing how the listener experiences time.

Though in regards to theory. I can clearly state, I have developed my own music theory. yet, just like everything in existence, there are bits and pieces of various other methods and theories.  which is why most folk tend to discredit my music. since they are not used to my theory. (which on the criticism issue, i take it as a grain of salt... unless they pitpoint the purposeful mistake i made. Then i explain to them exactly the process behind it.)

Did you happen to follow along with the score while listening to the first symphony Phil?

actually disregard that question. i think i know the answer.
Did you happen to listen intently, not as background music? it may or not change your opinion.

I do enjoy your music, because it has potential and has inspirational qualities to it. 
As you said, most of it is mainly preludes, and such. Which builds intensity. 

But my personal preferences are longer songs. I would put your music in my reference folder if i could obtain it. 
From the few songs i have heard, i see the evolution you are portraying. I also can feel the message you are sending. 
Metamorphosis is still my favourite of them, I would like to hear you make a three or four movement sonata based off of it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I always listening intently if I was to offer any opinion. I wouldn't just play it in the background. That is just disrespectful . I'll address the tempo thing in your symphony thread.


----------



## dzc4627

This is a terrible post.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ Is that a Criticism or a Casual comment?


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> ^ Is that a Criticism or a Casual comment?


Are they mutually exclusive?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Zeus hit the nail on the head.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

This thread hearkens back to the days of "Understanding Me" and "Critics Read"

Hopefully we should all have the sense not to let that happen again.


----------



## Captainnumber36

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> This thread hearkens back to the days of "Understanding Me" and "Critics Read"
> 
> Hopefully we should all have the sense not to let that happen again.


You're not wrong...:lol:


----------

