# Which are your best pieces and why?.



## aleazk

I was listening to all my pieces and I thought, "my god, what a great amount of garbage!", definitely I wasted my time in composing those abominations. What I noticed in amateur composition is the following, it is not that hard to come up with at least one decent piece if you have at least some talent, the hard part is to be _consistently_ good. Definitely I'm eons away from that goal.
Anyway, from all that garbage, I would say that the first and last movements of my piano "concerto" are my most decent attempts. I had luck I guess.
What's your opinion of your own music?.


----------



## Cosmos

Well I only write music for fun, and (since we're all our worst critics) I think much of it is dull. In fact, I don't think I've written anything longer than 5-8 minutes but it feels longer just because it's uninteresting. 

The best thing I've written so far is a "Sonata" I'm working on, which I like the most of anything I've written before.


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> I was listening to all my pieces and I thought, "my god, what a great amount of garbage!", definitely I wasted my time in composing those abominations.


I have perhaps an encouraging report for you: Even the talented students working under very fine guidance do write a lot of garbage... unless you are a Mozart it is just par for the course.

The thing is even those bad pieces were, while you were working on them, the greatest thing ever and kept you engaged in working them out -- at least I sincerely hope so.

What they were for: to find your way, of course. To learn to begin, get through the middle of, and complete a piece. To better determine your strengths, and weaknesses, and better use both, or correct some part of either. To be used as preliminary exercises in strengthening your compositional muscles, your mental acuity and stamina.

They had to be written in order to get where you are now.



aleazk said:


> What I noticed in amateur composition is the following, it is not that hard to come up with at least one decent piece if you have at least some talent, the hard part is to be _consistently_ good.


The difference between a great amateur photographer and a great professional: the amateur takes 32 shots, one or two are great, if cropped a bit, for example. The professional takes two to four, and throws out all but one, that needing next to no further manipulation: the professional can repeat that pretty much on demand, back to back, all day long, while the amateur, until they improve, is stuck with the 32:1 ratio 

After enough experience, you begin to get a cannier radar / editor -- you just know more readily if that idea / sketch has material which will yield, i.e. be enough to make an extended dialogue. A while after that, you may find you can have several pieces going, of a slightly different nature, and go from one to the next if you get 'stuck' in working on one of them.

That is all towards becoming more consistent. The more of your own invented problems you successfully solve, you are better equipped to solve others, even ones more new to you.

Just as in life the older you get you become more selective about what you want to do, who you want to spend time with, in composition it is a parallel situation, the what and who being your own musical inventions.

Whether it is performance or composition, consistency is the name of the game, and a word students will hear often from their instructors. (In my second training in theory and comp, at a later than average age for college, my private comp tutor, my first semester working with him, told me that my work was A+ but he had given me a B+, because my rate of production was slow, saying that if professional, I would have to be able to meet scheduled commission deadlines, and how quickly one wrote was part of the overall requirement. I am still a "slow" composer... but not being there concerned for grades, I very much appreciated being told what was expected, and it was also a very nice, if oblique, encouraging compliment.)

Having said all that, look at the overall output of John Adams, who from early career on has been working solely on commission. Almost all are equally well-crafted, while (to my ear) about half of them are of real interest, wholly successful, and actually communicate something.

The lesson one should extract from that is one every professional knows: you don't feel like doing it all the time, are not inspired all the time. That, my friend is where all the experience and technique comes in. (This is where all those romantic notions about mood or what you need to feel like in order to compose become childishly naive and risible.)


----------



## Crudblud

I think _Sailin' Tuns!_ is my best work. The pieces are essentially simple and concise corruptions of "folk-ish" tunes, but there's a lot of stuff thrown in there that "doesn't belong" yet paradoxically fits just right. I don't mind that I haven't reached that level again since then; I understand that I was working with a highly rare inspiration and can't expect to tap into that every time.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

where do I start, so I think i will stop here


----------



## mmsbls

aleazk said:


> Anyway, from all that garbage, I would say that the first and last movements of my piano "concerto" are my most decent attempts. I had luck I guess.


When I was a grad student, one of my fellow grad students was reading Sartre's _Being and Nothingness_. I thought that was amazing for him to have the time for that. I was similarly amazed that you had time to write the concerto. Furthermore, I found the work quite enjoyable.

So here's my list of great scientist/composers:

1) Borodin
2) Herschel
3) aleazk


----------



## Pennypacker

I have one... It's the best so far.


----------



## madviolist

Well ... probably "best" pieces I've written are String Quartet and Chamber Symphony (I've posted them, you've may seen it). "Probably" because people liked them the most, however, I thought I did my best at Cello Concerto which is quite neglected? Maybe after the live recording in autumn ...


----------



## aleazk

Petr, yes, I guess you are right. After all that process, certainly I learned many things, but still I'm far from the goal of consistency.
Maybe one cannot write very good and interesting pieces in a row. As you say, one can't be inspired all the time.
What I would like is to consistently write well crafted music. Like Adams, as you say.
For example, when working in a multi-movement piece, maybe I have one or two really nice movements, I would like to be able to write the remaining movements and, even if they are not really as interesting as the other movements, their well crafted nature gives a round shape to the full piece. 
I think my goal is maybe too ambitious for me. After all, I'm not a professional. Adams can do that precisely because he is a professional.
mmsbls, you are just being too kind with me. I appreciate your good intentions nevertheless.

------------------------------

On the topic of the thread, I remember another piece which I can consider "good" or at least "not bad". It's one the first pieces for piano I made. It was supposed to be the first movement of a piano sonata, but since the other movements are crap, I'm going to consider it as an isolated piece. I find it interesting because it's completely diatonic, but I wouldn't say it's strictly "tonal" (there are some tonal cadences, though). It has some interesting rhythm and it's very virtuosic.


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

Right now, what have I wrote best... was an Improvisation Piano song, Bass Trombone Soliloquoy and a Piano Étude. I don't like to get cocky, but I like the stuff I do. I love them all! Even the stuff I didn't go good, I try to make it better. 
Links will be shown below!

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2738795/Bass Trombone Soliquoy.wav
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2738795/Étude in F# Majeur - The Pentatonic Juggler.wav
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2738795/Improv in Bb Minor - Waltz.wav


----------



## PetrB

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> Right now, what have I wrote best... was an Improvisation Piano song, Bass Trombone Soliloquoy and a Piano Étude. I don't like to get cocky, but I like the stuff I do. I love them all! Even the stuff I didn't go good, I try to make it better.
> Links will be shown below!
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2738795/Bass Trombone Soliquoy.wav
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2738795/Étude in F# Majeur - The Pentatonic Juggler.wav
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2738795/Improv in Bb Minor - Waltz.wav


okeedoh: in some languages, the word for song is also used for instrumental pieces. 
In English, _song_ designates an actual vocal song, piece is used to designate the instrumental works. 
There are a few exceptions, Mendelssohn's piano pieces _Songs without Words_ titled such to allude to their highly lyric nature 

Best regards.


----------



## rborganist

My best compositions so far (IMHO) are eighteen pieces for piano solo in three sets: An Album of Roses, An Album of Miniature Roses, and An Album of Old Roses. They are inspired by particular characterisitics of roses I grow or have grown. Some are based on dance forms, some use particular types of harmonies in their portrayal, and one had a dual inspiration--a rose and a poems I loved as a child (and still do). None of them are long, but the eighteen of them add up to about 30 minutes worth of music. I played them recently for members of my local rose society, and many people commented how much they enjoyed them (most of these people are not trained musicians). Also consistently some of the best work I've done is a Christmas cantata entitled The First Songs of Christmas. When my teacher finished playing the Song of Simeon, he turned around with a huge smile on his face and said "That's great!" I nearly wept for joy; I knew that all our hard work had paid off.


----------



## Ravndal

rborganist said:


> My best compositions so far (IMHO) are eighteen pieces for piano solo in three sets: An Album of Roses, An Album of Miniature Roses, and An Album of Old Roses. They are inspired by particular characterisitics of roses I grow or have grown. Some are based on dance forms, some use particular types of harmonies in their portrayal, and one had a dual inspiration--a rose and a poems I loved as a child (and still do). None of them are long, but the eighteen of them add up to about 30 minutes worth of music. I played them recently for members of my local rose society, and many people commented how much they enjoyed them (most of these people are not trained musicians). Also consistently some of the best work I've done is a Christmas cantata entitled The First Songs of Christmas. When my teacher finished playing the Song of Simeon, he turned around with a huge smile on his face and said "That's great!" I nearly wept for joy; I knew that all our hard work had paid off.


Sounds wonderful! Do you want to show us? =)


----------



## arpeggio

*Garbage*

I tried to compose when I was in college. Everything I composed was absolute *GARBAGE*. This is one of the reasons I smirk when I hear people complaining about Cage. I would kill to be as bad as Cage. If you heard any of my stuff you would be pleading for silence.


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

arpeggio said:


> I tried to compose when I was in college. Everything I composed was absolute *GARBAGE*. This is one of the reasons I smirk when I hear people complaining about Cage. I would kill to be as bad as Cage. If you heard any of my stuff you would be pleading for silence.


John Cage was never garbage. John Cage was the composer who actually opened the door to modern minimalism, for very very dissonante music (salvage music). This is why I love John Cage at any price. He is absolutely a genious. Why you say you are garbage, I never heard your compositions so I can't say anything about it. Never judge a book by its cover but by its the content (music theory) that matters to me. I don't care if it sounds bad or anything like that but the music theory is more pleading to me. I actually prefer a a bad song with music theory used (atleast tried) to a good song which doesn't use theory on whatsoever.


----------



## Crudblud

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> I actually prefer a a bad song with music theory used (atleast tried) to a good song which doesn't use theory on whatsoever.


I don't recommend listening to my music then.


----------



## aleazk

Crudblud said:


> I don't recommend listening to my music then.


"Salvage music", right? .


----------



## Crudblud

aleazk said:


> Salvage music, right?  .


All I know is it doesn't sound like Bill Evans playing Chopin at 5 o'clock in the morning.


----------



## PetrB

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> John Cage was never garbage. John Cage was the composer who actually opened the door to modern minimalism, for very very dissonante music (salvage music). This is why I love John Cage at any price. He is absolutely a genious. Why you say you are garbage, I never heard your compositions so I can't say anything about it. Never judge a book by its cover but by its the content (music theory) that matters to me. I don't care if it sounds bad or anything like that but the music theory is more pleading to me. I actually prefer a a bad song with music theory used (atleast tried) to a good song which doesn't use theory on whatsoever.


There is not one scrap of written music which does not 'use theory' whether the composer was trained, knows nothing of it, or is going against some standard theoretical premise.

I suppose you mean music which sounds more tonal than not, more toward the common practice era or the earlier still tonal modernists of the first half of the 20th century. But we really cannot know what you meant when you said "music which uses music theory."


----------



## arpeggio

*John Cage is OK?*



ricardo_jvc6 said:


> John Cage was never garbage. John Cage was the composer who actually opened the door to modern minimalism, for very very dissonante music (salvage music). This is why I love John Cage at any price. He is absolutely a genious. Why you say you are garbage, I never heard your compositions so I can't say anything about it. Never judge a book by its cover but by its the content (music theory) that matters to me. I don't care if it sounds bad or anything like that but the music theory is more pleading to me. I actually prefer a a bad song with music theory used (atleast tried) to a good song which doesn't use theory on whatsoever.


It appears that you may be unfamiliar with my position concerning Cage. I was being sarcastic. There are several works of his that I enjoy. Unlike many here I agree with your assessment.


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

PetrB said:


> There is not one scrap of written music which does not 'use theory' whether the composer was trained, knows nothing of it, or is going against some standard theoretical premise.
> 
> I suppose you mean music which sounds more tonal than not, more toward the common practice era or the earlier still tonal modernists of the first half of the 20th century. But we really cannot know what you meant when you said "music which uses music theory."


Petrov, thank you for helping what I mean. These composers towards the 20th century used mathematics and Theory(wierd scales, odd time signatures,etc) . Bartok, Satie and Debussy (and others) used the "Golden ratio" to compose some of their pieces. Jazz which uses a great variety of styles and by its means, it is reviving the greek modes again. I'm not against to your opinion, which I highly respect it and consider to be better over mine but what I see is so many composers out there that doesn't know a _'single bit of theory' _and is rewarded *more* than a trained composer, but that is just me of what I think it is not correct and I'm totally against at. Look at some people in youtube which have great talent and potential in composition but are never found but some famous people who are more than rich and they just have no talent at all(my opinion). What is this? What has humanity gone for?


----------



## Crudblud

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> Petrov, thank you for helping what I mean. These composers towards the 20th century used mathematics and Theory(wierd scales, odd time signatures,etc) . Bartok, Satie and Debussy (and others) used the "Golden ratio" to compose some of their pieces. Jazz which uses a great variety of styles and by its means, it is reviving the greek modes again. I'm not against to your opinion, which I highly respect it and consider to be better over mine but what I see is so many composers out there that doesn't know a _'single bit of theory' _and is rewarded *more* than a trained composer, but that is just me of what I think it is not correct and I'm totally against at. Look at some people in youtube which have great talent and potential in composition but are never found but some famous people who are more than rich and they just have no talent at all(my opinion). What is this? What has humanity gone for?


You don't need to know music theory to use weird scales or odd time signatures, I don't know a "single bit of theory" and yet I am capable of using and do use such things in my work. Do I have talent? Maybe, maybe not, but I do know that having talent and knowing music theory are not the same thing. I also know that having talent and/or knowing music theory is not, has never been and never will be any guarantee of success.


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

Crudblud said:


> You don't need to know music theory to use weird scales or odd time signatures, I don't know a "single bit of theory" and yet I am capable of using and do use such things in my work. Do I have talent? Maybe, maybe not, but I do know that having talent and knowing music theory are not the same thing. I also know that having talent and/or knowing music theory is not, has never been and never will be any guarantee of success.


Thank you for your comment. I know sometimes not knowing music theory can make you compose but music theory is an aid to any composer out there, for me it is some sort of aid to help me write music down. But I do see some people who don't have talent being rich. (eg. JUSTIN BIEBER)) :lol:


----------



## bagpipers

fugue for brass orchestra from unfinished orchestral suite "conversations with orchestra"

grave solemnis from sonata for solo piano. in the lydian mode but in C#,so C# minor with the G natural

two dualing men from unfinished 14 movement suite for solo piano


----------



## PetrB

Crudblud said:


> All I know is it doesn't sound like Bill Evans playing Chopin at 5 o'clock in the morning.


Is that 5 a.m. at the end of Bill's day, or the beginning?


----------



## PetrB

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> Petrov, thank you for helping what I mean. These composers towards the 20th century used mathematics and Theory(wierd scales, odd time signatures,etc) . Bartok, Satie and Debussy (and others) used the "Golden ratio" to compose some of their pieces. Jazz which uses a great variety of styles and by its means, it is reviving the greek modes again. I'm not against to your opinion, which I highly respect it and consider to be better over mine but what I see is so many composers out there that doesn't know a _'single bit of theory' _and is rewarded *more* than a trained composer, but that is just me of what I think it is not correct and I'm totally against at. Look at some people in youtube which have great talent and potential in composition but are never found but some famous people who are more than rich and they just have no talent at all(my opinion). What is this? What has humanity gone for?


This has been said before, generations previous to ours and then repeated again, from other generations prior ours:

We live in a world awash with mediocrity.

That may have already been true back then as now. What is utterly different? "The People" are now "empowered" with not only a voice of their own, but a cash consumer voice which not only talks loudly, but screams to the music business, especially the pop music business and any other branch of music considered more outright "commercial" than that of fine art.

Now, then, we are not only awash in _mediocrity, it is fast replacing old standards and becoming the new high standard._ That is, at least, my observation and point of view.

This is "the place" where we get people "coming from" when they say things like Andrew Lloyd Weber musicals are "classical," that the score, or any bit of the score, from _Final Fantasy_ is classical, and those opinions being sincere, i.e. those who hold them seem to really think that puts _Final Fantasy_ on a par with Beethoven 

That is what, due to huge media access, and music now reaching a wider population base than it ever had before, is happening.


----------



## aleazk

Yeah, funny to see how my awesome signature is mercilessly banalized.


----------

