Another invention

Just to give an opinion.. I see Bach in this invention from a stylistic point of view and, in my opinion, today's composers are wrong to emulate the greats of the past...

This invention is something that already exists, moreover composed by a great composer like Bach, it brings nothing new... and obviously, whoever studies Bach in the future will not be Marcozzi. (This is not an accusation of plagiarism but a suggestion for reflection)

Obviously, as "new" music I don't mean Gianna Nannini, Al Bano or whatever, but obviously "stylistically new" music.

So much has already been written in Music, if not everything... From Baroque, Classical, Romanticism.. up to dodecaphonic music, but I know very few composers who have used odd time signatures in their compositions (not the common 3/4, but 7/8, 15/16, 13/16, 5/4 and so on).

The few composers in whom I noticed an use of odd time signatures were those who wrote dodecaphonic music, but which I find quite uncomfortable to listen to and not even pleasant to play; however, in my opinion, a composition, any composition, in odd time signatures (not dodecaphonic) would be a nice novelty to propose to the musical world..

If you want to take it as a challenge for your next composition, it's up to you

I composed a piece with some odd time signatures a while ago; although the version on the forum is quite obsolete, I will soon record the definitive version and let you listen to it, obviously all humbly.. I don't expect you to take inspiration from me

I am an "ignorant" of composition, I barely know the circle of fifths and modulations and you certainly know more than me, but I find the use of odd time signatures very expressive because what you think shouldn't be correct in 4/4 and therefore everything is much more "free"

Ciao

I understand what you mean, from a stylistic point of view it can, could remind one of Bach, but I am sure that an analysis would reveal errors in voice leading and, indeed, speaking of stylistic practice, I would be—and am—far from a re-enactment of that style. Theoretically, I am not advanced; on the contrary, I still have to study modulations, so I am quite far behind, but at the moment I write (at least at the beginning) I try to apply (especially lately) recognizable rhythmic patterns, all while writing what I like (but satisfaction is almost never enough). The fact is that I don't want to copy Bach, but I like him so much that the intent (not always, because for pieces for solo instrument it comes naturally to me, but I repeat, natural doesn't mean I think I am doing well, because anyone would be able to find stylistic errors and more) is to succeed in writing a piece that reminds me of his way of doing things. I don't place much importance on writing something unique, because lately I have a physiological, even psychological, need for something that is "recognizable," "simple," "fluid," and pleasant; for this reason, I have changed my approach to writing somewhat compared to a few years ago. If I saw a score I wrote in 2000, with several tempo changes, with a melodic line that I tried to keep in the foreground despite the use of chords that were in a sense complex, perhaps you would think I have worsened given the trend, but that is not necessarily true. I feel more at ease with electronic music, and with this type of music I haven't ventured into anything particular yet (one has to sit down, concentrate, and with a clear idea in mind; for me, it's not always like that, quite the contrary). I have just finished writing a mini cantata for 11 instruments and 4 voices; I have already written that it strongly reminds one of Bach's BWV 25, but that is not the problem if you think it was my exact intention to write it this way, because I am so fascinated by his that I wanted to write something similar. Obviously, it is not the same thing; the rhythm and the text change (the text is mine), but until I feel like trying to write something that deviates a bit from what I have done so far (which may or may not happen), I prefer to do what I can and not venture into something that (at least for now, given my level of culture, my lack of preparation, my lifestyle, what I like to do) I am not capable of doing. However, I would like to clarify one thing: stylistically it may make one think of Bach (for me it is a compliment, with all due caveats and the distance taken from those who knew how to do better than me, that much is certain), but among all the inventions he wrote, I don't think I have heard one similar to this; I hope the meaning is understood, as I wouldn't want it to be taken as absolute certainty or self-celebration—nothing more wrong than that. I mean to say that, quite simply, it may also remind one of him, but if it isn't truly similar or even better, identical, why should I avoid writing in this way? After all, many people criticize this way of doing things negatively (which for me is not a "way of doing things," because it is not my intention to write exactly like Bach, but to write what comes spontaneously to me, and if this reminds one of him, so be it), but in the end, I don't see all this innovative vein. Even among contemporaries, I too often hear practices that are now overused and tired; few "attract" me, few know how to write pieces that are even short, concise, with substance, and without exaggerating in effect-driven writing. I wouldn't want this response of mine to cause controversy, in general I mean; I don't feel all this novelty in the musical field without "losing my mind," meaning writing pieces for which a dictionary and vocabulary are necessary—in short, music must also be pleasant, and I no longer pose the problem to myself as I once did of trying to do something unique if (at the moment, for who I am now) I cannot succeed at it and don't feel like it; why force it? I would reverse the question: how many composers are capable of writing truly complex pieces, but at the same time capable of writing in "now outdated" styles while remaining credible? Mine is a provocation, and I wouldn't take for granted that anyone of these (hypothetical) ones succeeds; it's not certain. Anyway, this has nothing to do with what I wrote (I mean the piece), it is a provocation, that's all.

For me, it has its distance from Bach... perhaps little, but differences can be perceived, not accidental and carried through. I am not saying that it cannot be improved, but it has its touch of originality.

pianothor wrote:

In Music, so much has already been written, if not everything... From Baroque, Classical, Romanticism.. up to dodecaphonic music, but I really know very few composers who have used odd time signatures in their compositions (not the common 3/4, but 7/8, 15/16, 13/16, 5/4 and so on).

A couple of observations:

- after dodecaphony there are at least 100 years of music

- the meter indication is never a symptom of anything... if anything, its use.

Sincerely, I didn't understand what is meant by odd time signatures ...

The Piccinesco / Bach comparison doesn't hold up because anyone would choose Bach... even if Mozart were on the other side. All joking aside, Bach could never have written something like what was proposed by Piccinesco... the sound is different. That being said, I am not convinced that it is a piece that possesses a certain dose of modernity in itself. From my point of view, it makes free use of already used material... stylistically speaking. At a technical and craftsmanship level, one can reason in other terms... which ultimately is the only thing one can discuss... tastes are tastes and even aesthetic sense is a personal matter.

Perhaps I was misunderstood, I didn't mean to say that you copied Bach... but that I notice a great influence of his on your composition; in short, it is felt that you are not influenced by Chopin but more by Bach (to be understood).

I agree with the fact that music should be pleasant, and precisely for this reason I advocate the use of odd time signatures (occasional) because they do not limit the composer to thinking in 4/4.

I compose by ear; I often have ideas in my head that I then play, and as I imagine the music, I simply put it on the staff. I do not resort to any rules of Composition because I am ignorant in that regard...

Perhaps that is precisely the reason why, since I am ignorant, I do not feel the duty to respect rules and I simply write what I have in my head. (I promise that I will upload the definitive recording of my composition as soon as possible)

I know that academies have often minimized the figure of Keith Emerson, but in my opinion, he best explains my idea of "modern" Classical music.

It could have been better, I agree, but Keith Emerson in his Piano Concerto No. 1 acted as I think one should act when composing new Music, without "limits" of "time". (Note that it is not full of odd time signatures, but they are used occasionally to introduce short ideas almost independent of the composition)

@Oracolo

I never find anything contemporary that is "decent" to listen to; could you recommend some composers (for piano) if you happen to know any?

Open content (youtube)

pianothor wrote:

@Oracolo

I never find anything contemporary that is "decent" to listen to, could you perhaps recommend some composers (for piano) if you happen to know any?

Sorry, if what you listened to (what?) you don't like, it is a matter of taste... "decent" is an evaluation that veers a bit elsewhere. There is plenty of music out there that is more than decent, but only you can know what you truly like. Therefore, attend concert halls... and form a good idea for yourself

I continue not to understand what is meant by odd time signatures ...

> the figure of Keith Emerson, in my opinion, best explains my idea of "modern" Classical music

... it is probably the music that you like, it doesn't explain much about modernity in general. Also because music shows and does not prove...

For me, everyone is influenced; we are the fruit of what we listen to... what difference does it make if the influence is Bach, Chopin, or Emerson? To paraphrase, one will choose Emerson and not Pianothor. The point is not this, but how credible a certain piece is... then it will be chosen regardless.

For me "it's clear", regarding odd time signatures, you are trying to say that there is a risk of being cliché and predictable in a piece, whereas using odd time signatures (though the use of accents and slurs can already modify the perception of listening) creates an interruption of the constant in a work that, depending on how it has been set up, could result in being interesting, precisely because one is taken by surprise.

Can I have an example of odd time? ...meanwhile perhaps one wants to refer to the metric indication also because the tempo indications are: andante, veloce, prestissimo, etc.

Abate has hit the core of the discussion (or at least one of the most important points), credibility is a bit like building a reputation in any field, and being truly what one presents oneself to be.

Piccinesco wrote:

For me "it's clear", regarding odd time signatures you are trying to say that one risks being cliché and predictable in a piece, whereas using odd time signatures (but the use of accents and slurs can already modify the perception of listening) creates an interruption of the constant in a work that, depending on how it has been set up, could result in being interesting, precisely because one is taken by surprise.

Excuse me, but how can a "metric indication" ever take someone by surprise?

Piccinesco wrote:

Abate hit the core of the discussion (or at least one of the most important points), credibility; it's a bit like building a reputation in any field, and being truly what one presents oneself to be.

Cero! So what would a metric indication have to do with all this? Give me a break. As if 4/4 were better than 5/4 or vice versa... perhaps it is how one uses them that makes the difference

You said it. The internal arrangement and not the measure.

...let's just say that Keith Emerson has clear references to Sergei Prokofiev, Dave Brubeck and Art Tatum

Then Art is better...to each their own tastes

The discussion can also be extended to vertical movement; one could think of rhythm (horizontal) in a vertical sense, adopting a method (specific to a piece) in which the vertical arrangement of notes (single or otherwise) is established based on a procedure that reproposes one or more rhythmic patterns; the difficulty lies in making such a thing align with musicality, without reducing work to mere technique.

Piccinesco wrote:

You said it. The internal arrangement is not according to the measure.

Mah... maybe, I didn't understand. Internal arrangement of what? Especially since those who don't care about the meter... use 4/4 ...besides, the discussion actually started from 4/4. So let's not make wild leaps...

Once "the paperwork" has started, it is mandatory. And anyway I am always late, to be precise I stayed at 3/4 (I'm missing 1/4)

Piccinesco wrote:

The discussion can also be extended to the vertical movement; one could think of rhythm (horizontal) in a vertical sense, adopting a method (specific to a piece) in which the vertical arrangement of notes (single or otherwise) is established based on a procedure that reproposes one or more rhythmic patterns; the difficulty lies in making something like this align with musicality, without reducing work to mere technique.

Do 'rhythmic characters' mean nothing to anyone? Would this be the cute novelty to propose to the musical world? It is certainly a beautiful idea that has just passed its first century of life and even continued greatly several decades later