Thread: My 1st prelude

I wrote this today on Sibelius, and wonder what people think. All opinions welcome as that will aid me for future compositions. I will be putting the score on score exchange shortly if any wishes to view it.

Thank you

I can comment on the musicality of it, and i think it sounds a bit random. Did you just write it in sibelius, or have you played some of it on the piano?

No, all done on sibelius.

This is the score:

http://www.scoreexchange.com/scores/129387.html

I'm not a composer, but i like to improvise on the piano. And i think, if you improvise upon that theme, you can get a better result than just writing things down.

yea, it sounds kinda random. But i loved the dynamics.

I liked it a lot

I didn't think it was overly random... as long as it sounds good then idc

I like this prelude much. I think that as a whole it sounds well balanced, and though I did find the second chord (in measure five) a little strange to my ears, the music is fun to listen to.

I thought the opening was great, but from after 0:25 I think you should have written some transitions between each new idea as the suddenness might throw the listener off a bit. Study some preludes by other composers too to see how they have structured their music.

Thank you for all your input, it is duly noted. I do appreciate the 'suddenness' of parts can be somewhat odd, and future works will have smoother transitions, but I was trying to make the piece feel unsettled and possibly agitated.

Why does it have to sound as if it were written in the nineteenth century?

(I confess I only listened to 0:34, and that opening might be part of a post-modernist polystylistic approach, but somehow I doubt it.)

Why not?

Thanks for listening to 34 seconds, every little helps! There's no need to be sarcastic though.

Originally Posted by beetzart

Why not?

Do you not have a more interesting, informative response?

I am genuinely interested why so many of the people who choose to share their compositions on this site adopt a style which is ultra-reactionary. Merely aping other people is at best insincere and your piece just seems to consist of rhetorical clichés culled from the styles of quite a wide timespan (so maybe it was unintentionally polystylistic after all). If you were writing a story, you wouldn’t create it by extracting common phrases from Jane Austen novels, with bits of Dickens and Shelley thrown in, so why do the same in music? Be your own man, for heaven’s sake.

The passage starting at 0:06 (and again at 1:42) surely needs correcting.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Marchant

Do you not have a more interesting, informative response?

I am genuinely interested why so many of the people who choose to share their compositions on this site adopt a style which is ultra-reactionary. Merely aping other people is at best insincere and your piece just seems to consist of rhetorical clichés culled from the styles of quite a wide timespan (so maybe it was unintentionally polystylistic after all). If you were writing a story, you wouldn’t create it by extracting common phrases from Jane Austen novels, with bits of Dickens and Shelley thrown in, so why do the same in music? Be your own man, for heaven’s sake.

The passage starting at 0:06 (and again at 1:42) surely needs correcting.

Perhaps because one's aesthetic view need not necessarily be limited to pure originality at the cost of pleasure and beauty. While extracting ideas from past composers and using these to form a pasthiche of sorts is not necessarily comendable, atleast in my opinion, composing in the style of a certain period certainly is if one finds that it is that language which is most beautiful.

What does it matter that the style is reactionary? That is not bad, it is a mere fact. I'd much rather listen to a piece written today in a reactionary style and which pleases me than spend time and effort trying to learn to appreciate something which I find absolute drivel. And do note that I am not agains't modernism - quite the opposite. If someone wants to write in a more avant-garde way, then do it. If I don't like it, I won't listen to it. If I do, I will. It comes down to personal taste - there is always an audience for everything.

Refering to your example, if someone wrote today, in a style similar to Victor Hugo's, for instance, an absolute masterpiece, would you refer to it as "merely aping" the great frenchman? I think that we both agree that copying someone's work and using parts of it is wrong. But using the same language, if you find that you like it the most, and that it is close to your idea of beauty, is not.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Marchant

Do you not have a more interesting, informative response?

I am genuinely interested why so many of the people who choose to share their compositions on this site adopt a style which is ultra-reactionary. Merely aping other people is at best insincere and your piece just seems to consist of rhetorical clichés culled from the styles of quite a wide timespan (so maybe it was unintentionally polystylistic after all). If you were writing a story, you wouldn’t create it by extracting common phrases from Jane Austen novels, with bits of Dickens and Shelley thrown in, so why do the same in music? Be your own man, for heaven’s sake.

The passage starting at 0:06 (and again at 1:42) surely needs correcting.

Simply because I enjoy writing in quasi styles of past masters. I would though be interested to hear what your definition of originality is though. Maybe you have some compositions of your own I could listen to.

What about Michael Nyman's music? That contains a lot of aping; is that still insincere?

I can't believe what a hypocrite you appear to be, Jeremy! Looking at this site of yours http://jeremy.marchant.com/index2.htm it shows that you are influenced by the composers that inspire you. So if it is ok for you, why not others?