# A "Jam' of mine titled "Vegas"



## Captainnumber36

A fun little jam of mine: I love to improvise, it's a big part of my musical roots being first a Dave Matthews Band fan and then a huge Phishhead.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I know this perhaps isn't the expertise of this site, but many of us are music lovers before classical music lovers at least that's what I have gathered.

Hope to get some reactions to this!


----------



## Phil loves classical

I actually think this is my favourite of your compositions, since you don't quite compose classical, and I don't like New Age.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> I actually think this is my favourite of your compositions, since you don't quite compose classical, and I don't like New Age.


I have a lot of funk based pieces, I'll definitely upload more of them in the future. Thanks for listening, and I'm glad you liked it.

I'm not even sure if my other work is New Age exactly, but it's certainly more New Age than Classical.


----------



## dzc4627

Boring, repetitive, awkward dissonances, bland in general. There is no depth to it.

It was nice to have a recapitulatory section in the end.


----------



## Captainnumber36

dzc4627 said:


> Boring, repetitive, awkward dissonances, bland in general. There is no depth to it.
> It was nice to have a recapitulatory section in the end.


I can definitely see why you don't like my music, but am happy you were able to squeeze something nice to say about it at the end there.

It is simple and more straightforward, it has more similarity to popular music than classical music, definitely, which is why I think it rubs you the wrong way so much.


----------



## Torkelburger

Captain, have you thought about using a computer to sequence your compositions? I think your ideas would come through a lot better that way. Like with this piece, drums, bass, keys, horns, etc. would make it sound so much better and not so bare boned. It's hard to fully get what's going on in your head by what you're playing. And you are limited by your piano skills.

I think your new age music would also be better on computer because you would not be limited by your piano technique. You could make the computer play things you wouldn't be able to. Please do not take offence, but your technique is beginner to low intermediate level and your compositions suffer as a result. You should sequence your compositions or take piano lessons (even "pop" lessons) if you want to improve them.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Torkelburger said:


> Captain, have you thought about using a computer to sequence your compositions? I think your ideas would come through a lot better that way. Like with this piece, drums, bass, keys, horns, etc. would make it sound so much better and not so bare boned. It's hard to fully get what's going on in your head by what you're playing. And you are limited by your piano skills.
> 
> I think your new age music would also be better on computer because you would not be limited by your piano technique. You could make the computer play things you wouldn't be able to. Please do not take offence, but your technique is beginner to low intermediate level and your compositions suffer as a result. You should sequence your compositions or take piano lessons (even "pop" lessons) if you want to improve them.


Since I like to be able to perform live, I attempt to compose in the manner that it can be performed live with whatever group arrangement I have going for me at the time. At this time, I am performing solo, so I attempt to compose for solo piano. What exactly about the technique is poor in your opinion? Perhaps I can use some tips to improve.

Is it execution, or the limitations of my playing? If it's the latter, I could certainly attempt to grow to compose more complicated material, but that will come with time.

I'm at a very comfortable place at the moment with my abilities and compositional skills, but I have the mindset to always grow.

Thank you for your comments,
:tiphat:


----------



## Torkelburger

> What exactly about the technique is poor in your opinion?


Basically an overall lack of dexterity in both hands, but especially the left. Simple fingerings. Simple 2 part playing. Avoiding moving the right hand melodically, just using one position (if it does move, it's between phrases). Just stuff like that. But I didn't want to focus on that.

I think it is a great idea to compose more complicated material, with time. Since a computer won't work for you, maybe try pen and paper and just your imagination. Then take it to the piano afterwards. Try just a few bars at first, maybe like 16 and then see how it goes. You could always do more later. I really want to encourage you to challenge yourself outside of your comfort zone with grooves. Grooves can be great, but they can also be a crutch. Sometimes when we don't know where to go and get writer's block or if we forget easily what we write, we just "groove it out" to solve the problem. Try and find out new ways to get mileage out of fragments of material.

Good luck!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Torkelburger said:


> Basically an overall lack of dexterity in both hands, but especially the left. Simple fingerings. Simple 2 part playing. Avoiding moving the right hand melodically, just using one position (if it does move, it's between phrases). Just stuff like that. But I didn't want to focus on that.
> 
> I think it is a great idea to compose more complicated material, with time. Since a computer won't work for you, maybe try pen and paper and just your imagination. Then take it to the piano afterwards. Try just a few bars at first, maybe like 16 and then see how it goes. You could always do more later. I really want to encourage you to challenge yourself outside of your comfort zone with grooves. Grooves can be great, but they can also be a crutch. Sometimes when we don't know where to go and get writer's block or if we forget easily what we write, we just "groove it out" to solve the problem. Try and find out new ways to get mileage out of fragments of material.
> 
> Good luck!


Exactly what I thought, it's a lack of what could be with more technical ability rather than a critique of what is and it's execution which relaxes my nerves a bit.

I've never attempted to write from the mind, but I think that could be a good exercise. Like you said, start small and build it up!


----------



## Phil loves classical

LIke I said, Capt'n this is one of the pieces I like better. I think the best word to describe your music in general Capt'n is it's minimalistic. I think you just start out with one idea, and just start adding stuff to it as you feel fit. No one can say there is really anything wrong. But I think people here more used to classical will expect multiple ideas developing front the get go. I don't think it is your technique (hands) limiting you, but your head. Taking some music theory and analysing more classical music, and even certain types of other styles can expand your horizons. It sounds like you are trying to reinvent the wheel. I think most listeners here expect to hear music taking off from a further point.


----------



## nikola

I like it. Interesting jazzy stuff. You don't need to care for people who want only classical music.


----------



## Captainnumber36

nikola said:


> I like it. Interesting jazzy stuff. You don't need to care for people who want only classical music.


Thanks Nikola for the encouragement!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> LIke I said, Capt'n this is one of the pieces I like better. I think the best word to describe your music in general Capt'n is it's minimalistic. I think you just start out with one idea, and just start adding stuff to it as you feel fit. No one can say there is really anything wrong. But I think people here more used to classical will expect multiple ideas developing front the get go. I don't think it is your technique (hands) limiting you, but your head. Taking some music theory and analysing more classical music, and even certain types of other styles can expand your horizons. It sounds like you are trying to reinvent the wheel. I think most listeners here expect to hear music taking off from a further point.


I do agree it is more my mind than my technical ability that is holding me back, but what do you mean when you say people here expect to hear music taking off from a further point, I didn't quite understand you there.


----------



## dzc4627

Captainnumber36 said:


> I do agree it is more my mind than my technical ability that is holding me back, but what do you mean when you say people here expect to hear music taking off from a further point, I didn't quite understand you there.


I believe he means people expect to hear music that includes "multiple ideas developing front the get go." Stuff that is way more complex, satisfying, redeeming, thrilling, witty, and dramatic.

For instance: the music is in E major, and yet, not ever is there any sort of dominant tonic relationship! The walking bass even teases at it but it just narrowly avoids the dominant by a semitone for each and every time it is repeated. The dominant tonic relationship is the most important in ALL of music, and yet you totally avoid it? There is nothing exciting about that. It just sounds like a continuous boring mumbling around on the same bass line with the same chords. I improvised, or "jammed," on tenor sax in a jazz band for many years and I can confidently say there is no jam that was ever as simply rooted as this one. I cannot iterate enough, that without the dominant tonic relationship you will be hard pressed to make music that is at all pleasing to the ear in the way that almost all classical music is at least to some degree.


----------



## Captainnumber36

dzc4627 said:


> I believe he means people expect to hear music that includes "multiple ideas developing front the get go." Stuff that is way more complex, satisfying, redeeming, thrilling, witty, and dramatic.


Lots of those adjectives you used are terms used to evaluate music on a personal and subjective level. The only one that is correct is stating the technical complexity of the composition, which mine are not technically complex, I'll agree. However, I and others find it complex in other ways that I don't believe you have the ability to recognize because that is not your background and you are quite stuck in your method of assessing the quality of music and unwilling to see from another viewpoint.

Certainly satisfying, redeeming, thrilling, witty, and dramatic are all up for discussion and are not objectively missing from my music.


----------



## Captainnumber36

dzc4627 said:


> I believe he means people expect to hear music that includes "multiple ideas developing front the get go." Stuff that is way more complex, satisfying, redeeming, thrilling, witty, and dramatic.
> 
> For instance: the music is in E major, and yet, not ever is there any sort of dominant tonic relationship! The walking bass even teases at it but it just narrowly avoids the dominant by a semitone for each and every time it is repeated. The dominant tonic relationship is the most important in ALL of music, and yet you totally avoid it? There is nothing exciting about that. It just sounds like a continuous boring mumbling around on the same bass line with the same chords. I improvised, or "jammed," on tenor sax in a jazz band for many years and I can confidently say there is no jam that was ever as simply rooted as this one. I cannot iterate enough, that without the dominant tonic relationship you will be hard pressed to make music that is at all pleasing to the ear in the way that almost all classical music is at least to some degree.


This isn't Jazz, it is jam band inspired, the likes of Phish especially are a huge influence on me. The grateful dead began the tradition, and Phish are considered the modern day leaders of the genre. They usually jam on one or two chords at a time, change keys as a group, on the spot, without being planned, when they "feel" it. Sometimes their jams don't work out, but they are usually at least decent.

It's more about, how clever can you be in a repetitive groove in terms of melody idea hooks (as the lead soloist) and how tight is your pocket to keep the groove tight and enjoyable.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Also E, I would remove your comments of impoliteness to avoid an infraction from the mods.


----------



## brianvds

Me, I'm always impressed when people can improvise anything at all, because it's not a skill I could ever master - I don't know how people seem to instantly know which chords will go with the melody, or play the melody accurately without error. My head is constantly full of melodies, but to get them onto the keyboard I have to painstakingly plink and plonk around until I get the correct notes out, and then working out suitable harmonies is again a matter of trying out various chords until I hit the ones I had in mind (or, sometimes, accidentally stumble on others that _also_ work!). And thus, in summary, hearing me playing around on a keyboard is decidedly not a pleasant experience.


----------



## Captainnumber36

brianvds said:


> Me, I'm always impressed when people can improvise anything at all, because it's not a skill I could ever master - I don't know how people seem to instantly know which chords will go with the melody, or play the melody accurately without error. My head is constantly full of melodies, but to get them onto the keyboard I have to painstakingly plink and plonk around until I get the correct notes out, and then working out suitable harmonies is again a matter of trying out various chords until I hit the ones I had in mind (or, sometimes, accidentally stumble on others that _also_ work!). And thus, in summary, hearing me playing around on a keyboard is decidedly not a pleasant experience.


Thanks for the kind words Brianvds.


----------



## Captainnumber36

dzc4627 said:


> I believe he means people expect to hear music that includes "multiple ideas developing front the get go." Stuff that is way more complex, satisfying, redeeming, thrilling, witty, and dramatic.
> 
> For instance: the music is in E major, and yet, not ever is there any sort of dominant tonic relationship! The walking bass even teases at it but it just narrowly avoids the dominant by a semitone for each and every time it is repeated. The dominant tonic relationship is the most important in ALL of music, and yet you totally avoid it? There is nothing exciting about that. It just sounds like a continuous boring mumbling around on the same bass line with the same chords. I improvised, or "jammed," on tenor sax in a jazz band for many years and I can confidently say there is no jam that was ever as simply rooted as this one. I cannot iterate enough, that without the dominant tonic relationship you will be hard pressed to make music that is at all pleasing to the ear in the way that almost all classical music is at least to some degree.


You sound like you have a very theoretical approach to writing, much like Bach. I don't adhere to any rules when I compose except to follow where my emotions lead me, that is how I compose. I write what I hear and feel, you write what you know and understand theoretically.

Neither is truly superior to the other other than personal preference.

I have always felt coming from a theoretical approach would get in the way of the artistry and expression of it all. I think this is why I lean towards the romantics, who focused on emotional expression.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> You sound like you have a very theoretical approach to writing, much like Bach. I don't adhere to any rules when I compose except to follow where my emotions lead me, that is how I compose. I write what I hear and feel, you write what you know and understand theoretically.
> 
> Neither is truly superior to the other other than personal preference.
> 
> *I have always felt coming from a theoretical approach would get in the way of the artistry and expression of it all. I think this is why I lean towards the romantics, who focused on emotional expression*.


Whoa, Capt'n. You don't know what you're saying there. Coming from a theoretical background can in fact give you more ideas as it helps with your analytical skills in listening to what's out there and the state of music in certain genres. It can only ADD to the artistry and expression. It's a tool rather than a burden. Of course someone with only technical knowledge may not write inspired stuff. Lack of musical theoretical knowledge can only get in the way of writing something better and more sophisticated, conversely. Your impression there may work in the pop/rock world, but wouldn't work to well in the Classical world.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Whoa, Capt'n. You don't know what you're saying there. Coming from a theoretical background can in fact give you more ideas as it helps with your analytical skills in listening to what's out there and the state of music in certain genres. It can only ADD to the artistry and expression. It's a tool rather than a burden. Of course someone with only technical knowledge may not write inspired stuff. Lack of musical theoretical knowledge can only get in the way of writing something better and more sophisticated, conversely. Your impression there may work in the pop/rock world, but wouldn't work to well in the Classical world.


I'm not sure I 100% agree with you on this one, Phil. I think it can work both ways, theory can get in the way, lack of theory can get in the way, it depends on the composer.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not sure I 100% agree with you on this one, Phil. I think it can work both ways, theory can get in the way, lack of theory can get in the way, it depends on the composer.


There is no way theory can get in the way of anything, sorry. Theory might not help you, but it cannot hurt you.

And do you think your musical favorites (as you have said)- Debussy, Ravel, Mahler, etc.- didn't have an exceptional understanding of musical theory? An understanding of musical theory can only make someone better.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> There is no way theory can get in the way of anything, sorry. Theory might not help you, but it cannot hurt you.
> 
> And do you think your musical favorites (as you have said)- Debussy, Ravel, Mahler, etc.- didn't have an exceptional understanding of musical theory? An understanding of musical theory can only make someone better.


I'm genuinely not convinced of that. I think sometimes you can get caught up in following the rules instead of following your own inner voice, and I also think knowledge of theory CAN get in the way of being original, but it can also help.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm genuinely not convinced of that. I think sometimes you can get caught up in following the rules instead of following your own inner voice, and I also think knowledge of theory CAN get in the way of being original, but it can also help.


You don't always have to apply your knowledge of theory. What I'm saying is it can't hurt- sometimes you won't need to use the theory you have, and most of the time you will. But if you choose not to use it, it can't get in the way. You will not get worse as a composer in any way by having more knowledge of music theory.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Tchaikov6 said:


> You don't always have to apply your knowledge of theory. What I'm saying is it can't hurt- sometimes you won't need to use the theory you have, and most of the time you will. But if you choose not to use it, it can't get in the way. You will not get worse as a composer in any way by having more knowledge of music theory.


We can agree to disagree.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> We can agree to disagree.


Perfectly fine with me.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Tchaikov6 said:


> You don't always have to apply your knowledge of theory. What I'm saying is it can't hurt- sometimes you won't need to use the theory you have, and most of the time you will. But if you choose not to use it, it can't get in the way. You will not get worse as a composer in any way by having more knowledge of music theory.


Agree with Tchaikov. One can judge better if they did come from a more theoretical background rather than speculate how it might get in the way. Even our new fave composers Yanni and Vangelis wrote stuff that doesn't break rules, and works on a theoretical level (likely someone corrected the mistakes if not themselves). They just have a more limited depth of writing. It is pure fanciful thinking that one can just pick something up and excel in it before some major prep.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> Agree with Tchaikov. One can judge better if they did come from a more theoretical background rather than speculate how it might get in the way. Even our new fave composers Yanni and Vangelis wrote stuff that doesn't break rules, and works on a theoretical level (likely someone corrected the mistakes if not themselves). They just have a more limited depth of writing. It is pure fanciful thinking that one can just pick something up and excel in it before some major prep.


I was trained in Suzuki piano which focuses on training the ear over theory, so that is my background.


----------



## brianvds

Phil loves classical said:


> Agree with Tchaikov. One can judge better if they did come from a more theoretical background rather than speculate how it might get in the way. Even our new fave composers Yanni and Vangelis wrote stuff that doesn't break rules, and works on a theoretical level (likely someone corrected the mistakes if not themselves). They just have a more limited depth of writing. It is pure fanciful thinking that one can just pick something up and excel in it before some major prep.


Neither of them can read music, but I think both of them have a sound intuition for theory and harmony. Same goes for the Beatles. My guess is that both sometimes use classically trained musicians to help them work out backing tracks, when they play piano accompanied by orchestras, but Vangelis' purely electronic music is all improvised on the spot by himself.

And I would think that if one does not study theory formally, then one will at the very least need to develop that sort of intuition for it, and stick to the New Age/popular genre, where one can get away with melody plus simple accompaniment, and where development, modulation to new keys, counterpoint etc. are not as important or frequently used.

In short, you need not formally study music to be able to compose, and you need not even be able to read notes. Here where I live, traditional African music is often quite complex; they sing in multiple voices in harmony and even employ some basic contrapuntal techniques, and they do so without reading a note of music. They can take any traditional song and turn it into remarkably intricate music, especially when accompanied by drums (where they also can work up patterns of quite bewildering complexity, improvising it all on the spot).

I know a guy who could improvise quite lovely New Agey stuff on the piano; he could not read a note of sheet music.

But all of the above folks have one thing in common: they have a very good ear, and a very sound intuitive sense of music theory. They all know very well what chords are, even if they have no technical terms for it. And all their music remains comparative simple compared to a lot of classical music; there is no other way. You can't compose fugues without deep knowledge of theory, I would think.


----------



## brianvds

Another composer without sheet music comes to mind: David Nevue. Well, he says he can sort of read sheet music, but not well at all and he plays and composes entirely by ear. Sheet music of his work is transcribed from recordings by other people. He does this sort of thing:






Seeing as he cannot read sheet music well, he cannot have a conventional understanding of music theory. However, he also says that to him at least, music theory is absolutely fundamental to composition. So what are we to make of that? I actually wish I knew, but I would guess he is very familiar with such ideas as scales, keys, chords and their inversions, etc. I would guess his understanding of these things is based on visualizing them on a keyboard rather than as sheet music, but he clearly does understand it.


----------



## Captainnumber36

brianvds said:


> Another composer without sheet music comes to mind: David Nevue. Well, he says he can sort of read sheet music, but not well at all and he plays and composes entirely by ear. Sheet music of his work is transcribed from recordings by other people. He does this sort of thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as he cannot read sheet music well, he cannot have a conventional understanding of music theory. However, he also says that to him at least, music theory is absolutely fundamental to composition. So what are we to make of that? I actually wish I knew, but I would guess he is very familiar with such ideas as scales, keys, chords and their inversions, etc. I would guess his understanding of these things is based on visualizing them on a keyboard rather than as sheet music, but he clearly does understand it.


I have a very deep intuitive understanding of music theory based upon hours upon hours of listening to music I love. My ear is very highly developed.

I just know what to do without knowing what I'm doing.

The piece you posted is beautiful, I'll have to look into him.

I'm also becoming a fan of Vangelis, I had to idea he composed Chariots of Fire!


----------



## Captainnumber36

I'm very intuitive in most things I do, even providing therapy to my clients.


----------



## Captainnumber36

But yes, if you want to compose accurately a particular style, you must study it and know it very well I would think, like a Fugue.


----------



## brianvds

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm also becoming a fan of Vangelis, I had to idea he composed Chariots of Fire!


Perhaps his most famous piece, and the one I like least, simply because it is so overplayed. 
Can't remember if I have mentioned it, but my favourite Vangelis album is _Soil Festivities_. It is one of the least known ones. Apparently the entire thing is improvised, though I am not at all sure how he went about it, because there is surely more going on there than can be played by a single person in a single take. Or so it seems.

I would love to know more about Vangelis and his compositional process, but he is so notoriously secretive that no one is even sure where he lives.


----------



## Captainnumber36

brianvds said:


> Perhaps his most famous piece, and the one I like least, simply because it is so overplayed.
> Can't remember if I have mentioned it, but my favourite Vangelis album is _Soil Festivities_. It is one of the least known ones. Apparently the entire thing is improvised, though I am not at all sure how he went about it, because there is surely more going on there than can be played by a single person in a single take. Or so it seems.
> 
> I would love to know more about Vangelis and his compositional process, but he is so notoriously secretive that no one is even sure where he lives.


I just fired it up, lets see!

I did really enjoy his latest release, Rosetta very much though. I know you said you didn't enjoy his latest releases, but that one blew me away.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I'm loving this! I'd love to see someone orchestrate some of his compositions for Orchestra. I totally hear it sounding amazing!


----------



## Captainnumber36

I really love how different this album sounds compared to the Rosetta one, shows his diversity. This one feels a bit more abstract to me, but I love them both.

I think I'll buy this one to start off, though!

Thank you for showing me heros I can look up to that have similar philosophies as me!


----------

