Page 8 of 22 FirstFirst ... 45678910111218 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 326

Thread: My Nocturne - New Age/Classical Hybrid

  1. #106
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

  2. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paulc View Post
    It's one thing for you to claim that and another to prove it by documenting the motif and other cohesive elements in the section I mentioned (00:40 - 1:26). But, you can't show us the commonality in that section can you? You didn't compose it, you recorded it ad-lib! If you composed it, you could show us the score and highlight the repeated elements...

    Anyway, I think I'm done reasoning with you. Notice I only talked about the music and you responded with comments about my character. You can't handle criticism.
    LOL... now accusing me of not composing it. I didn't learn music theory and I don't care. I don't need to prove you anything, but there is something you could do - stop saying nonsense about something you obviously don't have feeling or talent for - a music.

    I can't handle criticism? Everyone can pull nonsense out of their a** just like you and claim that is criticism. It's quite sad that you call your delusions "a criticism".

  3. Likes JamieHoldham liked this post
  4. #108
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I think you need some more benzos

  5. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paulc View Post
    I think you need some more benzos
    lol... you're really pathetic, but even worse is that your abilities to hear music are lower than low. You're the epitome of everything wrong and fake. I was on some other music boards, but I never read such a load of meaningless stuff before about anyone's piece. You're simply saying nonsense so you can feel smarter even though you don't know what you're talking about and it's so obvious that it hurts. To you music is something that is on the paper. You can't feel it... you can't hear it... it's sad.

  6. Likes JamieHoldham liked this post
  7. #110
    Senior Member Captainnumber36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,094
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paulc View Post
    I think you need some more benzos
    That's not something to joke about. Benzo withdrawal is very serious! I take Xanax as needed, were you taking a benzo everyday Nikola?

  8. #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captainnumber36 View Post
    That's not something to joke about. Benzo withdrawal is very serious! I take Xanax as needed, were you taking a benzo everyday Nikola?
    I was taking diazepam for 3 months (small doses) and it screwed me like hell. Even without that I have some crazy condition since March (not serious, but hard to deal with) and that's why I started to take them. 7 weeks ago I quit diazepam, but even before that I got some new symptoms. After I take the last one, a week after that I developed some 20 new symptoms and my symptom for which I started to take them became much worse. It seems that very slowly some symptoms are going away or becoming easier to handle, but it's still pretty much hard.

  9. #112
    Senior Member Captainnumber36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,094
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nikola View Post
    I was taking diazepam for 3 months (small doses) and it screwed me like hell. Even without that I have some crazy condition since March (not serious, but hard to deal with) and that's why I started to take them. 7 weeks ago I quit diazepam, but even before that I got some new symptoms. After I take the last one, a week after that I developed some 20 new symptoms and my symptom for which I started to take them became much worse. It seems that very slowly some symptoms are going away or becoming easier to handle, but it's still pretty much hard.
    I'm sorry it turned out like that for you and hope you get well soon. Xanax is a miracle drug for my anxiety, i take lexapro and gabapentin everyday and xanax as needed.

  10. #113
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    After this what happened with diazepam I really don't trust doctors anymore and I won't take any psychotropic drug no matter what.

  11. Likes Captainnumber36 liked this post
  12. #114
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Considering that nonsense from paulc, even though it doesn't deserve an answer, I'll try to explain with my own words my piece "The Piano's Song".

    So, paulc said that first 20 seconds are cohesive. Well, there's at least one thing we can agree about.
    After 20 seconds something changes and he can't understand WHY and states that it's all 'jumbled'. So, I'll try to explain this.

    If you couldn't hear it (and obviously you couldn't), the beginning of the main part (let's call it like that) starts at 0:19 and it starts with exactly same harmony as the begininning of the piece.
    BUT, considering melody, it takes only 2 first tones of the beginning, then melody stops for a moment and its direction changes. After that change, harmony changes too and that's where the magic is.

    Because piece is very similar to a pop song structure, we could call that part from 0:20 to 0:40 to be a 'chorus' of the piece. It's something you can hear for example in many pop songs. You can listen to Elton John's 'I'm Still Standing'. When chorus starts, not much things make sense on the paper, but that is where magic starts and it seems to me that you can't understand this simple magic, but that is why we are listening to the music and enjoy in it. Something works simply because it works to the ear. You can call it "the development of the harmonies/melodies" if you're not familiar with something like that.
    There is no science behind it, because that 'science' must rely on our ears. Our ears don't rely on 'musical science'.

    So, just because you can't 'justify' (what a load of nonsense) on paper that 'chorus' part, it doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Composers like Elton John compose by ear and they don't try to justify with sheets what they composed. You can hear his song and realize that he certainly knows what he is doing, not based on his knowledge (even though he has it), but based on his hearing and instincts.

    If something doesn't change and always stays the same, we probably talk about some simplistic folk or blues songs and not about this.
    So, when I composed that 'chorus' part, I was actually quite aware what I am doing and it certainly wasn't jumbled. It is actually very cohesive. I put enough thinking and effort into it to sound exactly the way it sounds now. If you would try to change it, you would only ruin it... trust me on that. I don't want it to sound different (worse).

    From 0:40 to 1:00 there is the same harmony just like at the beginning, but with slightly different tones of the melody and then - changes once again happens. Why!? Because it works and because it should happen.

    From 1:00 to 1:25 we have quiet part. Why? Because piece needed it at that moment. It started with same LH arpeggios that you heard in previous parts which are all mostly here again now, but not in the same order. Why? Because they work just like that.

    In the end you have slight variation of the beginning, the exactly same 'chorus' after that and finally the returning to the beginning and that's the end of the story.

    Everythng is cohesive and works very well together. It's not classical piece and it doesn't pretend to be. It stands on its own as simple, yet cohesive and effective piano pop piece.

    You can use your so called 'musical theories' on someone who is completely deaf and can't understand what music is all about.
    Last edited by nikola; Aug-13-2017 at 16:27.

  13. #115
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikola
    "If you couldn't hear it (and obviously you couldn't), the beginning of the main part (let's call it like that) starts at 0:19 and it starts with exactly same harmony as the begininning of the piece."
    The beginning starts on a minor chord (presumably i, then moves to VII). If the key were C minor, the progression would be C minor to Bb Major. The part you're talking about (starting at 0:19) goes from i ("C minor") to VI ("Ab major") - what Leonard Cohen describes in 'Hallelujah' as 'the minor chord to the major lift' - etc... So, the harmony is not the same. That's not what I criticised though - the first and second halves of your chorus have so little in common. The chords are different, the melody is different, aside from that brief little motif ("Eb-D-Eb .. D-C") which you could make more use of to unify that part. I think the harmonies might also be unified.

    As your piece is structured: Intro - "Chorus" - Extended Bridge - "Chorus" - Outro - the first three contrasting parts (not counting the non-repeating elements in the chorus) all occur in a row - introducing new idea after new idea to the listener that they are not familiar with. Too many changes, not enough cohesion. Whereas, maybe if you revised the chorus and used that one motif more you could bring everything together. Possibly helped by repeating parts: Intro - Chorus - Intro (Variation) - Chorus - Bridge - Chorus - Outro. That's a more recognisable pop format if that is what you are aiming for.

    Aside from those first three parts, the bridge section features too many changes (without any commonality) as well. In a fugue for example, any subjects are usually clearly stated at the beginning of a piece (exposition) before the development begins - so that the listener can latch onto them and hear them more clearly when they are later repeated in more complex arrangements.

    I don't see how I'm being offensive? I'm not being contrarian for the sake of it, this is my opinion. The structure of your piece reminds me of some of my older ones, which also introduced a barrage of new ideas rather than developing earlier ones.

    Of course, you can write whatever you want. Don't insult me though?
    Last edited by paulc; Aug-13-2017 at 17:44.

  14. #116
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    You are not offensive. You're only milking dead cow. Dead cow is your nonsense and milking more nonsense from nonsense only brings more nonsense. Nobody except you had the problem with listening to this piece. What you call 'unfamiliar' is simply natural development of the melody. If you don't find logic in my development, maybe I'm great innovator then and you're completely lost (unlike other listeners) to understand this piece.

    Once again, everything you mention again and again simply shows that you're not able to comprehend simple and logical melodic construction of simple and logical musical piece.
    No, I didn't aim for pop format. I didn't aim to use chords and tones from your 'theory rules'. I don't want to, because I know that this piece works on all possible levels.

    I composed what I wanted to compose and you're the only person in the universe (probably along with some other deaf wannabe classical composer) who thinks that he 'knows' something.
    Can you be more fake than you already are?
    The more you talk about this piece, the more you reveal your shallow mindset.

    If you only follow some 'rules' blindly, I guess that you will never be able to compose anything meaningful. Even Vangelis and Yanni don't follow any rules and they don't even know about those. You will pull from your a** theory that they do know even you probably never heard anything from them. You only want to convince me that you know and that they know something that I don't know. Even orchestra changed one tone of Yanni's piece because they thought it doesn't belong there. When Yanni heard it, he told them that that tone actually must stay there.

    You're maybe only jealous... I would even understand that, but it seems to me that you're not able to hear what you're listening to and that is much worse.

    So, what you're talking is really and utterly useless. It doesn't have anything to do with music. Trying to put music in some cages with rules... telling to composer what chords he must use. I mean... do you realize how stupid that sounds? Of course not. You're probably spent too many years lost in all these empty babble while thinking it makes much sense. Well... keep talking.

    I must admit that there are some of my pieces that I can find parts that I'm not too happy about or that they don't sound like they perfectly fit there, but your nonsense is truly overwhelming.

    I'm not insulting you. I'm trying to help you, but you obviously can't handle critic, because you think that talking nonsense about music is a good thing. I actually think that you should reconsider your delusions and start to be preoccupied with something else than music.
    Last edited by nikola; Aug-13-2017 at 18:13.

  15. Likes JamieHoldham liked this post
  16. #117
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    All the greatest musicians that actually made some difference in the world told one and the only truth: there are no rules.
    I guess there are out there also many mediocre mindsets who wouldn't be able to compose anything decent even if their life depends on that, but will always think that they can mask their lack of talent by blindly following all possible rules.

    Some of them are here attacking people who are brave enough to share their own music even though it doesn't fit into 'classical holy cow form'. The problem is that when I hear 'music' of all those 'harsh critics who are trying to help' with their nonsense I can mostly hear technical crap that sounds like they don't want to become anything other than bleak copies of long time dead composers. Sorry to say that, but some of you here don't have a f***ing clue what music actually is and to be aware that some of you actually have musical knowledge, all this is even more sad.

    With his latest 3 pieces Captainnumber36 showed more talent and fast progression as an artist unlike 90% of all other stuff I was listening on this forum that can't evolve into anything more than grueling and superficial studies without any real idea, soul, theme, challenging harmony/melody patterns or originality.

  17. Likes JamieHoldham liked this post
  18. #118
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    We'll have to agree to disagree. Reading music books relentlessly & learning theory has helped me in a very practical way - to understand why those parts of my pieces I'm not happy about or which don't fit perfectly, don't work... and how to fix them! If you were to commit to study, you might also learn something useful. One of the books I'm reading translates treatises from people who knew or taught Bach, Mozart & Beethoven. It even cites corrections of Beethoven's early work (!) with reference to theory. If you can recognise the talent of these composers at all, you should respect the value of the theory imparted by their associates and mentors.

    Thanks for the encouragement!

  19. #119
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paulc View Post
    We'll have to agree to disagree. Reading music books relentlessly & learning theory has helped me in a very practical way - to understand why those parts of my pieces I'm not happy about or which don't fit perfectly, don't work... and how to fix them! If you were to commit to study, you might also learn something useful. One of the books I'm reading translates treatises from people who knew or taught Bach, Mozart & Beethoven. It even cites corrections of Beethoven's early work (!) with reference to theory. If you can recognise the talent of these composers at all, you should respect the value of the theory imparted by their associates and mentors.

    Thanks for the encouragement!

    But you don't know any theory. You proved it right now. Everything you say is an enormous pile of nonsense. Believe it or not, but I'm actually really not tone deaf and I can recognize great music. I can even understand why all the most popular classical pieces are actually so popular and I LOVE almost all of them... hundreds of those pieces. I appreciate all the beauty, originality and talent to compose something so brilliant. You probably can't understand why those pieces are popular. you must read to understand why.

    Have you ever shed a tear while listening to Mahler's 'Adagietto' or being deeply moved by Beethoven's 2nd mvt. from 7th symphony? Did you ever experience the rush of adrenaline while listening to Beethoven's 5th symphony or Dvorak's 'Symphony of the New World'.
    You didn't. You must study what other people can hear and feel.
    Last edited by nikola; Aug-13-2017 at 18:57.

  20. Likes JamieHoldham liked this post
  21. #120
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    You're making more assumptions! I've never studied the scores for Rachmaninov's Piano Concertos and Symphonies - which I have copies of - but I adore his music. Have you heard the second movement of Piano Concerto 2? Beautiful. What about the first 5:30 of the first movement of his 2nd Symphony, which reworks one simple motif 'first note-step up-step down' and its inversion over and over and over while rising in intensity?

    The idea that someone who studies and talks at length about theory is some cold unfeeling robot is plain silly.
    Last edited by paulc; Aug-13-2017 at 19:03.

Page 8 of 22 FirstFirst ... 45678910111218 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. SACD Hybrid Only Discussion
    By Tekrad in forum Hi-Fi
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: Jul-12-2017, 23:39
  2. Second Nocturne
    By Samuel Kristopher in forum Today's Composers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Jan-31-2017, 11:42
  3. Violin/Viola hybrid
    By MoonlightSonata in forum Strings
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May-20-2014, 22:45
  4. Classical/electronic hybrid music suggestion?
    By Unstruck in forum Classical Music Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: May-20-2014, 11:19

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •