Hey, if your a new member or you just want to tell us about yourself, Introduce yourself here and we can all know some facts about each other! Thanks!
A violin is taken to hospital. The doctor examines her and says:
"There's nothing wrong with you. But you broke your bow. How did that happen?"
Violin: "I only remember the thunderous applause for the composer."
Doctor: "Do you remember his name?"
Violin: "No. I think he was on the first page of the sheet music."
So i'm making my own sheet music. I'm not sure if this is good or not. Can anyone check if its good? Its still in progress by the way, so for now i've added an ending
Welcome to this Group! Please join! (But only if you want to!)
Make sure you share every thing and comment and give feedback on everything!
I was wondering if any of you knew of easy ukulele songs. I was looking here, but there wasn't much. I would appreciate if you could help me out!!!
Thanks sooo much!!!!
I think the sound of the Warm Synth is very good, and I wish this was the default sounds - - with a few adjustments - - to the group string sounds, i.e., Violins, Violas, Violincellos, Contrabasses. Please have a listen!
This work is taking the piece called ''Reminiscence'' by @romain_gandillet (link here:
) and creating a melody that sits on top of the piece, thus creating a new piece. The idea is inspired from the comment section of the gandillet's piece, where @Jenne Van Antwerpen commented how the piano sounds like Bach's prelude C major from WTC band 1 and that one could try adding a melody on top like Gounod did for Bach.
I have heard this question asked many times during my early professional career, and each time I recoil when I hear it. The fact is, this question is just a way for composers to point an accusatory finger because their art was not met with the glowing reception they crave. Although the question is inherently selfish, the sentiment behind it is legitimate; people do not respect new “intellectual” music anymore. That said, the question approaches the issue from the wrong angle. Composers should instead look inwards to search out what they could be doing to make the listener’s job easier, while at the same time not sacrificing their sense of artistry.
It is the opinion of the author that all music lies on a spectrum of purely popular to purely intellectual. Although these definitions change with the times, all music, contemporary and ancient, fall on this spectrum. For instance, Katy Perry’s newest hit single would fall as close to the “purely popular” side of the spectrum as possible. This ensures that she has as much popularity as possible, but it limits the intellectual nature of the art. Similarly, Milton Babbit falls as close to the “purely intellectual” side of the spectrum as possible, crafting highly complex music that the average music lover would not enjoy. There is certainly a place for those composers in this day and age, and maybe someday that music will be accepted, but since the academic composer of the last eighty years has met with little success in this area, it would be a safe assumption to say that this scenario is unlikely.
To get to the source of the issue, we must ask ourselves: “what is the role of music?” This question is deceptively simple, but ask the academic composer and the average listener alike, and they will come up with answers that may seem the same on the surface, but are in reality very different. The academic might say: “music is for the expression of the inward thought processes, shaped by personal experience and self-growth, managed by our interpretation of those experiences through our intellectual compositional paths,” while the average listener will probably say “music makes me feel good.” This satirical comparison aside, you can see that the listener listens to music to feel, while the academic thinks to compose. This is the author’s opinion of the state of the art. Composers have invested so much in their ability to think up something that no one has thought of before, while ignoring the listeners who love listening to a genre that bases itself upon music that is mostly creatively stagnant and alike to itself.
The question composers should be asking is not pointed towards the audience, but rather towards themselves: “what can I do to reach the audience while not sacrificing my intellectual identity or artistic style?” If the academics ask themselves this question, they will begin to make a connection with the listener, even if the two do not agree completely on style, for at least then, the composer is working for the listener, and not the other way around. When classical music was at its peak, this was the preeminent mindset of the composer. There was no guaranteed second performance of their newest piece, so they wrote to please their audience, but in the case of Beethoven (and others), he still adjusted the musical language for his intellectual purposes. This is why classical music (referring to music of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) and jazz are still the most popular recital hall concerts – the genres balance intellectual pursuits of the composer and the desires of the listener.
New music of any intellectual degree will never eclipse the popularity of Katy Perry or the Rolling Stones. That is a given. However, when the composer removes himself from the listener, claiming that it is the listener who owes him and not the other way around, music will never again make a true connection with the listener. Only when the academic composer decides to reach out to the listener will the listener reach out in return, meeting each other in the middle, experiencing music through both the creative lens of the composer and the emotional heart of the listener. Until that happens, the listener owes the composer absolutely nothing.
(This is for a School Competition)