# Song without Words In B flat major No. 2



## Musician

Performing my Song without Words for piano

Cheers

Saul


----------



## pluhagr

Hmmmmm... What can I say here, not that it really matters because you don't listen to criticism. Do you have scores of your music? Going on, this piece sounds like any other piece of music written by any composer who wants to sound romantic and new-age. Why would we listen to your music if there are other pieces composed by Mendelssohn which are much better. Your music sounds dated. Your music isn't reacting to any other particular movement or type of music. It's just a cheap sounding version of Debussy or Chopin. If you don't like modern or contemporary music, which you have previously stated, then REACT to it. Stop writing music which is so generic. I have listened to most things you've composed and posted on here and I honestly cannot differentiate between theme. They just congeal into one piece of music. I can say that this would be nice to hear being played by a pianist in a mall or cruise ship. But when I want to listen to something interesting I go to Stravinsky or Webern. 

I would also like to ask you a question, one which you have posed before: What is the meaning of this, what is the point?


----------



## Musician

So if it a matter of 'better' then we need to take all the music that was written after Rachmaninov and throw it in the garbage? or are you suggesting that today's gibberish modernism are superior or 'Better' then Bach for example?

People listen to music not because one music is 'better' then the other, this is not a competition. Must everything in this world be a competition? people listen for many reasons, primarily to have fun, relax, enjoyment, reflection, to dream, and just to put a smile acorss their faces... but if you listen to music because one music is better then the next then as I said, you will need to get yourself one gigantic garbage can and throw all your CDs of music that was composed after the 1950's...

And did you read the comments on the video?

Apparently it made a few people happy, and it only has 200 views, imagine if lets say 1 million people heard it, statistically that will get thousands of people loving this piece and enjoying it.

That is a great feeling.


----------



## BurningDesire

I don't much care for your opinions Musician. However I do like your music. The people who keep bashing your music are as wrong as you are in your bashing of other people's music.

I suspect that alot of this bashing is because people don't like things you've said, but people should learn to listen objectively. This Song Without Words is pretty good, though I think it could be improved with some developement and variation in your primary melodic line. Often you repeat material, which is fine sounding material, but the repetition doesn't add enough subtle changes I think. Still I find it fine music, very beautiful little romantic tunes. (PetrB's comments about it sounding like elevator music are absurd nonsense)

I also really enjoyed your "Story in A Major". That one is really quite good.


----------



## BurningDesire

The Great Forest is also really quite good music.


----------



## Musician

Thanks BurningDesire, whatever you said is the truth, but it would be nice to care about my opinions as well.
Of Course that the bashing was because some people don't like the things that I have said. But it is also possible that some don't like my music, period, I accept the fact that some people will like my music and some will not. I don't believe that there was a composer in the history of music that all listeners liked. As we have witnessed here from the various discussions, some people will like certain music and some will not like the same music. This is natural. I'm glad that you are from the ones that like my music.

Thanks


----------



## pluhagr

You didn't answer my question. What is the meaning of this, what is the point? I've said before that your music sounds pretty but it's boring as well.


----------



## Aramis

pluhagr said:


> I honestly cannot differentiate between theme.


No wonder - to differentiate, you have to get two things, you can't differentiate between theme because wherever you look right or left, it's still A theme, single thing. If you'd split the theme into notes though, you could differentiate between notes of the theme. Hope this helps.



BurningDesire said:


> absurd nonsense


ok

Doomed to total failure in a deaf world of ignorance and indifference, Saul inexorably kept on cutting out his diamonds, his dazzling diamonds, of whose mines he had a perfect knowledge.


----------



## Musician

Aramis, do you have any comment about the piece?


----------



## Aramis

Musician said:


> Aramis, do you have any comment about the piece?


Of positive things, I may say that you're actually listenable when you stick to classical inspirations - while these fantasy pieces with fancy titles tend to be plain kitschy, your works in classical forms sound much better to me and I can enjoy some of them. Not always - I remember I have disliked nocturne you have posted some time ago. This piece is pleasing though, absolutely no "bashing" from me this time.


----------



## Musician

Thanks Aramis...........


----------



## pluhagr

Aramis said:


> No wonder - to differentiate, you have to get two things, you can't differentiate between theme because wherever you look right or left, it's still A theme, single thing. If you'd split the theme into notes though, you could differentiate between notes of the theme. Hope this helps.


Edit: I meant them not theme.


----------



## BurningDesire

pluhagr said:


> Hmmmmm... What can I say here, not that it really matters because you don't listen to criticism. Do you have scores of your music? Going on, this piece sounds like any other piece of music written by any composer who wants to sound romantic and new-age. Why would we listen to your music if there are other pieces composed by Mendelssohn which are much better. Your music sounds dated. Your music isn't reacting to any other particular movement or type of music. It's just a cheap sounding version of Debussy or Chopin. If you don't like modern or contemporary music, which you have previously stated, then REACT to it. Stop writing music which is so generic. I have listened to most things you've composed and posted on here and I honestly cannot differentiate between theme. They just congeal into one piece of music. I can say that this would be nice to hear being played by a pianist in a mall or cruise ship. But when I want to listen to something interesting I go to Stravinsky or Webern.
> 
> I would also like to ask you a question, one which you have posed before: What is the meaning of this, what is the point?


How do you draw the conclusion that one's writing isn't reacting to any particular movement or type of music? Maybe its a reaction of the composer liking music from the 19th Century, and not caring for the newer techniques, so he explores creating in the older idiom. Older idioms aren't worse than newer ones. I think writing very traditional and conservative music in the face of modernist music is a pretty strong reaction to that kind of music. I would say that's a pretty big limitation on one's artistic output, but I'd say the same about a staunch modernist who only composes with rows, or other complex processes (I wouldn't say that they are necessarily bad or the wrong limitations though, not everybody needs to be eclectic to write great music)

I really really hate this mode of thinking, that writing in an older harmonic language (but writing new melodies, new music) is inherently boring, or lacking of artistic integrity or worth. As a lover of all kinds of music, with a special passion for modernist music myself, that is the worst possible defense of modern musical ideas. Well you should write this way because that's the current trend? It's in to use dissonances and the not favor diatonic and tonal procedures? Minimalism and serialism and other kinds of modernism are acceptable, but if you write new music that is Romantic because that is the idiom that interests you, well your music just must be worthless by default? You don't act as a great defender of modernism by attacking people who don't embrace those new tools in their own art. (likewise one doesn't act as a great defender of traditionalism by attacking those who experiment and utilize those new tools)

Boulez was wrong!


----------



## Aramis

> I think writing very traditional and conservative music in the face of modernist music is a pretty strong reaction to that kind of music.


Actually, pluhagr, I wanted to ask you too: how do you imagine possible artistic "reaction" to modern music that you suggest, as done by composer with such conservative tastes - not necessarily Saul himself, perhaps a hypotetical one?


----------



## BurningDesire

Aramis said:


> Actually, pluhagr, I wanted to ask you too: how do you imagine possible artistic "reaction" to modern music that you suggest, as done by composer with such conservative tastes - not necessarily Saul himself, perhaps a hypotetical one?


Is that a reference to something? I'm afraid its lost on me. At any rate I don't think I understand your question, shouldn't my quote be the obvious answer? Somebody writing traditional-sounding music because modernist ideas do nothing to spark their imagination, while older ideas do, is a perfectly legitimate mode of operation for an artist, just as is that of somebody who only finds passion in modernism and gets nothing from older music, just as is that of somebody who is passionate about a variety of old and new ideas and wants to explore things in many different idioms. Basically any art anybody makes will be a reaction to whatever art they've experienced, whether that reaction is to embrace that art or reject it, they're still reacting to and learning from it in some way.

Obviously somebody like Saul's reaction to modernist ideas is to reject them and turn to the music of older composers and learn from them, and to explore writing new music using those older harmonic and formal languages (and its not like those idioms have been exhausted, you just have to use your imagination). Some people will say that it sounds like it was written in the 1800s, and some people will say that it sounds "dated". But you know what? Bach sounds like his music was written in the 1600s and 1700s. Beethoven's music sounds old too. Schoenberg's sounds like it is from the early to mid 20th Century. Does that make the music any less awesome? Jimi Hendrix's music sounds like its from the 60s, does that make it any less awesome? Its a garbage argument against music. Its like saying that serialism and dissonant counterpoint have been around for nearly or over a hundred years, respectively. Writing new music using those languages must be "dated". Polytonality? Biber did that like 300 years ago. How unoriginal you were Stravinsky. And all those folk tunes and tribal rhythms, you don't get much more dated than that, am I right?

Seriously though, its just a bad argument to be making. Artists don't need to be utilizing every new tool that is introduced to write music that is worth a damn. Hell, most modernist composers have shunned amazing new tools like the electric guitar, and you don't see people telling them to get with the times (except you might see me saying that X3)


----------



## Aramis

> At any rate I don't think I understand your question, shouldn't my quote be the obvious answer?


But I've asked pluhagr, the person who brought the "reaction" issue up. I have quoted your post because it was close to asking the question I wanted to ask and reminded me to do it.


----------



## BurningDesire

Aramis said:


> But I've asked pluhagr, the person who brought the "reaction" issue up. I have quoted your post because it was close to asking the question I wanted to ask and reminded me to do it.


Woops, sorry, my mistake.


----------



## pluhagr

Aramis said:


> Actually, pluhagr, I wanted to ask you too: how do you imagine possible artistic "reaction" to modern music that you suggest, as done by composer with such conservative tastes - not necessarily Saul himself, perhaps a hypotetical one?


There are plenty of "conservative" thinking composers who have written and still write. I should also note that I am not talking about modern music... Modern music has ended and it has been contemporary for quite some time now. Contemporary music is rather tonal and more acceptable to the masses. Now to answer your question: A composer reacts with their own style incorporated in their music. I can react to the cluster chords of Whitacre by writing with clear and tight harmonic language. One can react to the intense formalism of modern music by writing music with no form.

I think the problem is that modern music is not new. It is not still being readily written today. Composers have moved beyond that. Serialism isn't written anymore and has been replaced with lyrical music. Music now looks back on the renaissance vocal techniques and simplicity. Someone who writes serial music nowadays would be considered conservative and old fashioned.


----------



## hreichgott

Very pretty and repetitive. I assume that was the goal.

I have one suggestion about the piano playing - when you have a long held note in the RH and the LH continues with an arpeggiated accompaniment, the LH tends to rush. Keeping steady would allow the music to breathe more. Rubato would be fine too in this style of music, as long as it is true rubato which ebbs and flows at chosen moments, not just rushing every time a long note arrives.


----------



## Musician

Thanks, good advice, Hreichgott...


----------



## BurningDesire

pluhagr said:


> There are plenty of "conservative" thinking composers who have written and still write. I should also note that I am not talking about modern music... Modern music has ended and it has been contemporary for quite some time now. Contemporary music is rather tonal and more acceptable to the masses. Now to answer your question: A composer reacts with their own style incorporated in their music. I can react to the cluster chords of Whitacre by writing with clear and tight harmonic language. One can react to the intense formalism of modern music by writing music with no form.
> 
> I think the problem is that modern music is not new. It is not still being readily written today. Composers have moved beyond that. Serialism isn't written anymore and has been replaced with lyrical music. Music now looks back on the renaissance vocal techniques and simplicity. Someone who writes serial music nowadays would be considered conservative and old fashioned.


Modern and contemporary mean the same thing


----------



## pluhagr

BurningDesire said:


> Modern and contemporary mean the same thing


Actually they don't in music. Check your facts.


----------



## Musician

pluhagr said:


> Actually they don't in music. Check your facts.


Heard of semantics?........


----------



## pluhagr

Musician said:


> Heard of semantics?........


Heard of music history?


----------



## BurningDesire

pluhagr said:


> Heard of music history?


I know my history, but if you mean MODERNISM, say MODERNISM, not modern. Modern just means "current" or "contemporary". Though it seems you think "contemporary" is synonymous with "fad" or "trend", and I'm afraid it isn't hon.


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

I noticed in Saul's Posts... that there a lot of unhealthy debates that could upbring to very bad consequences... It really does...


----------

