[1996D]

That doesn't make it good.

Only time will tell.

 

[Woodduck]

It's programmatic music depicting something specific.

It may be program music inspired by something specific, but whether it actually depicts anything must be decided by the listener, and the listener ultimately won't care about the piece if it doesn't reward him without the program printed in the booklet on his lap. It's no excuse for musical shortcomings to say that "it's program music." We don't need to know the Finnish forest god, the philosophy of Nietzsche, or the destiny of fallen Vikings to enjoy Tapiola, Also Sprach Zarathustra or the Ride of the Valkyries.

 

[1996D]

It may be program music inspired by something specific, but whether it actually depicts anything must be decided by the listener, and the listener ultimately won't care about the piece if it doesn't reward him without the program printed in the booklet on his lap. It's no excuse for musical shortcomings to say that "it's program music." We don't need to know the Finnish forest god, the philosophy of Nietzsche, or the destiny of fallen Vikings to enjoy Tapiola, Also Sprach Zarathustra or the Ride of the Valkyries.

It has no shortcomings. I wrote it a year ago and having digested it now I can say that it says exactly what it needed to say; I wouldn't change a thing.

Time is the only judge. A piece that is fantastically received may be forgotten very quickly; that's exactly what happened to Schreker whose critics declared better than Wagner.

 

[Phil loves classical]

It has no shortcomings. I wrote it a year ago and having digested it now I can say that it says exactly what it needed to say; I wouldn't change a thing.

Time is the only judge. A piece that is fantastically received may be forgotten very quickly; that's exactly what happened to Schreker whose critics declared better than Wagner.

It's perfect. Everyone else is just jealous. Don't listen to them.

 

[1996D]

It's perfect. Everyone else is just jealous. Don't listen to them.

Given that I wrote it a year ago, I'm already a different composer now, and working on new projects with different sounds given that they represent other things.

The piece however, is what I wanted, and I do think it's perfect program music. Give it time.

 

[Woodduck]

It has no shortcomings. I wrote it a year ago and having digested it now I can say that it says exactly what it needed to say; I wouldn't change a thing.

Time is the only judge. A piece that is fantastically received may be forgotten very quickly; that's exactly what happened to Schreker whose critics declared better than Wagner.

If your piece has no shortcomings then I guess we needn't wait for the judgment of time. But has it occurred to you that a piece can "say exactly what it needs to say" and still be mediocre?

It's true that a piece that's well-received may be forgotten quickly. So what? It's more to the point that most pieces that have merit are recognized quickly as having merit. Perhaps you think that no one here is qualified to recognize the merit of yours, and your sole purpose in airing it is to prove how glorious you are and how musically obtuse are the rest of us. But appealing to the old "great art isn't appreciated in its time" is an embarrassing strategy for a debutante.

By the way, who were the critics who declared that Schreker was greater than Wagner, how widely was that view shared, and how long was it before no one was saying it? Not long, I'm guessing.

 

[1996D]

If your piece has no shortcomings then I guess we needn't wait for the judgment of time. But has it occurred to you that a piece can "say exactly what it needs to say" and still be mediocre?

It's true that a piece that's well-received may be forgotten quickly. So what? It's more to the point that most pieces that have merit are recognized quickly as having merit. Perhaps you think that no one here is qualified to recognize the merit of yours, and your sole purpose in airing it is to prove how glorious you are and how musically obtuse are the rest of us. But appealing to the old "great art isn't appreciated in its time" is an embarrassing strategy for a debutante.

By the way, who were the critics who declared that Schreker was greater than Wagner, how widely was that view shared, and how long was it before no one was saying it? Not long, I'm guessing.

Listen, the piece is what it is, it's a finished work. There is nothing to change about it, and I've long moved on to different projects. My ability grows everyday and when it no longer does I'll stop composing.

The music goes together with the content and it's the latter that's important in this case. The rise of the tyrant, his death, and the transition, with a glimpse of what things could be like instead of restarting the cycle from zero. The form is a servant of the narrative.

 

[Woodduck]

Listen, the piece is what it is, it's a finished work. There is nothing to change about it, and I've long moved on to different projects. My ability grows everyday and when it no longer does I'll stop composing.

The music goes together with the content and it's the latter that's important in this case. The rise of the tyrant, his death, and the transition, with a glimpse of what things could be like instead of restarting the cycle from zero. The form is a servant of the narrative.

Well, that's interesting... I didn't hear "the rise of the tyrant, his death, and the transition, with a glimpse of what things could be like." I didn't know I was supposed to hear that. Did you think anyone would? When you say it's the "content" that matters, you're really saying that it's the program. But music doesn't tell stories; its real content is what people actually hear. Musical form can be guided by a program, but it still needs to justify itself. If it doesn't it won't succeed with listeners, or survive to be heard another day.

I actually listened to the piece twice, in order to clarify my impressions and look for things I may have missed the first time. A few days later, I retain an image of dark, thick, heavy sonorities at some point lightening a bit with the harmony more friendly-sounding, but hardly any other sense of form, and not a single melodic or rhythmic idea good or bad. If I were to hear it on the radio, I wouldn't be tempted to listen again. The idea that what I heard was an illustration of a "narrative" wouldn't make rehearing it more tempting.

You said, if I remember correctly, that you were mainly or exclusively interested in music that illustrated ideas. Well, few works of art, and probably no works of music, survive for long because of their ideological inspiration. If an artist needs such inspiration to create, fine; Wagner seemed to need a drama filled with poetic and philosophical ideas to get the juices flowing, and I suspect Mahler needed his programs as a stimulus too. But neither of them imagined that philosophy could substitute for clear, engaging, memorable deployment of the audible elements of music. If a program doesn't inspire that, it may not be a program wisely chosen, however fond of its ideas the composer may be.

 

[1996D]

Well, that's interesting... I didn't hear "the rise of the tyrant, his death, and the transition, with a glimpse of what things could be like." I didn't know I was supposed to hear that. Did you think anyone would? When you say it's the "content" that matters, you're really saying that it's the program. But music doesn't tell stories; its real content is what people actually hear. Musical form can be guided by a program, but it still needs to justify itself. If it doesn't it won't succeed with listeners, or survive to be heard another day.

I actually listened to the piece twice, in order to clarify my impressions and look for things I may have missed the first time. A few days later, I retain an image of dark, thick, heavy sonorities at some point lightening a bit with the harmony more friendly-sounding, but hardly any other sense of form, and not a single melodic or rhythmic idea good or bad. If I were to hear it on the radio, I wouldn't be tempted to listen again. The idea that what I heard was an illustration of a "narrative" wouldn't make rehearing it more tempting.

You said, if I remember correctly, that you were mainly or exclusively interested in music that illustrated ideas. Well, few works of art, and probably no works of music, survive for long because of their ideological inspiration. If an artist needs such inspiration to create, fine; Wagner seemed to need a drama filled with poetic and philosophical ideas to get the juices flowing, and I suspect Mahler needed his programs as a stimulus too. But neither of them imagined that philosophy could substitute for clear, engaging, memorable deployment of the audible elements of music. If a program doesn't inspire that, it may not be a program wisely chosen, however fond of its ideas the composer may be.

You make a great point, the program isn't something you want to understand, you made it clear that you dislike The Republic. In the piece I'm working on right now the program concerns something that perhaps more people can relate to, of course it has levels of understanding, but even the most basic one tells something that can reach everyone. You like Wagner so you should like it.

I really don't think there is much to write that doesn't have a program. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, already did everything.

 

[KenOC]

I keep reading this thread's title as "Litolff." Could have to do with my avatar, I guess.

 

[1996D]

I keep reading this thread's title as "Litolff." Could have to do with my avatar, I guess.

The title doesn't matter anyway, honestly I thought they would delete the thread but since I can't access the composers of today forum, this remains.

 

[Oldhoosierdude]

Best thing I've ever heard.

 

[pianozach]

I've been working on The Five Regimes, which took quite awhile to finish.

Here is a preview

"Video unavailable"

 

[pianozach]

Just finished skimming through the entire thread.

Entertaining.

Really difficult to say who's right and who's wrong without listening to the "work" being discussed, and I am not going to plunk down $10 or even 99¢ for something based on a sales pitch.

There's only two links provided, the YouTube video, which is unavailable, and his website, which is . . .

"This Bandzoogle account has expired.
If you are the account owner, please log in to restart it, or contact us if you have questions."

And then there's 1996D's TC account, which is listed as "Banned (Temporarily)"

I've drawn some judgmental conclusions about 1996D based on all of the comments on this thread, including his own.

He seems like an amateur with some talent, some hardware and software, a high self opinion, and thinks he has "created" the new musical "sliced bread.

I work in music. Full time. I'm familiar with composers old and new. I've heard singers and musicians and composers that post their art online, and rarely is it genius level material.

For new Classical music, getting your foot in the door is a laborious task; the door is huge, heavy, creaky, and has centuries of masterpieces, dogma, and dreck holding it shut.

Is 1996D the next Mozart? Highly doubtful, but without the opportunity to actually hear what he says is the "music of the future", it's really pointless to speculate. But I can judge from the comments of those that put an actual quarter in the jukebox that the work in question is nothing of the sort. Might make good soundtrack music, but he doesn't have the basics down.