End

Yannick, I don't know why, but it doesn't grab me as perhaps you would wish.

It can't please everyone... but that "I don't know why"... what do you mean?

It is always a bit difficult to comment on something that has to do with creativity, because one's own sensations (of the composer) and those of the listener mix together, even if they are not openly declared.

They conceal an expectation that is a consequence of one's own journey and the ability to be critical, especially with oneself, and then with others.

You wrote that in effect sometimes it is better to wait to define a piece before publishing it, something that clashes with the impatience to publish it.

However (there are almost always 'howevers'), one must always deal with the listener, who, even if they cannot put themselves in the shoes of the person who composed the piece, can still listen to it and report whether or not they had certain sensations and/or emotions.

The fact is that there are people who have listened to and continue to listen to so much music—both repertoire, then contemporary (understood as instrumental, correct, I mean correctly written on the staff or score and not left to the free will of the performer as might happen with some genres), and electronic (also from a certain period or current) of a certain complexity—that certain solutions, if they are not supported by even a single fragment that deviates from the listener's prediction, do not produce the desired effect in the latter from the person who composed the piece.

I am always of the opinion that even a simple piece must have at least a hint of some minimally "interesting" passage (which may or may not be for the listener, we are always back to that, but in some cases the composer realizes, or must realize, whether what they are writing can have this effect or is "only" supported by their own conviction, which in turn is supported by a euphoric state of mind; and here the rift always occurs between the expectations of the person who composed the piece and the resulting criticism. The criticism is not only negative, but some mistakenly think it is one-way; I received quite a "beating" on the composers' page on Facebook because I "dared" to leave a negative comment on some pieces by a girl, calling them predictable, and I was told that when it is like that, it is better not to say it, except in private, but when the criticism is positive, you can shout it to the whole world, because otherwise you crush a person, you do very serious damage—which I think would be done if one were to say "keep going like this" despite not thinking it, doing so only for future benefit, and very often that is how it is, I challenge anyone to deny it; in short, I was also told "who are you to judge in this way?", having first of all argued my point, even if minimally, and I replied "so I am nobody when the opinion is negative, but I become someone when it is positive; what do we do, is one-way okay in this case?", we aren't kids, after all), otherwise, as already stated, one runs into things already heard, which is already difficult to avoid when composing in a more complex manner; when the composition is so simple, the risk increases exponentially, so it is not guaranteed to have an effect.

Lately I have been "reconnecting" with simpler sounds because that is what I need, but at the same time, in a certain sense, I "do not justify" the use of overly predictable successions "only" because they have a certain effect on me; certainly, one should still work on them a bit to make them as unpredictable as possible while remaining minimally pleasant, knowing that there is a repertoire that has almost certainly adopted those solutions, even if in another compositional context (a specific piece) they take on their own value.

That being said, I am also for evocative, contemplative pieces, but they must have something unexpected (even just a single chordal solution out of 300, to use a very banal example), or at least something that does not tire and invites repeated listening.

Returning, however, to specify that I know very well how much a newly composed piece, in a specific emotional situation, can induce one to think it might have a certain effect on others, but one must separate (and it is not easy) one's own conviction from reality.

The inspiration is there, the underlying idea seems valid (in relation to the genre) and the sounds are good, even if the mix is too compressed in the center: listeners have two ears, not just one in the middle of their forehead...

The aspect that I like a little less is the part-writing: parallel fifths galore, homophonic movements, unresolved suspensions... Not that I am an expert in these things, but one strives to do one's best.

Even in this type of music, certain harmonic rules must be respected, and I think that more careful writing regarding this aspect would greatly enhance your intentions; sometimes the mistake is made of thinking that only a musician can notice these flaws, but that is not true: everyone hears them, even if non-experts are unable to identify them. Anyway, these things can be learned; other qualities, however, cannot, but it seems to me that you might have some (by studying a bit). Go for it.

Forgive me Cromo di brera,

but what is it that doesn't work in parallel fifths?

And in the sensitive notes that don't resolve?

Harmonic rules? What do you refer to as a harmonic rule, those from 300 years ago?

In general, I might agree with Micrologus, but rather than the fifths, the problem is usually the coherence with the declared context... of course, if a piece starts one way and then ends another, something is wrong. I don't know if that's what CromaDiBrera meant

Even in the case where a piece starts in one way and ends in another, I see no inconsistency if

the composer's intention was that; I would only be surprised if the author had been asked to write a fugue in style,

then yes, leading tones etc.... have nothing to do with it, not to mention starting by respecting the key and ending with a dodecaphonic series, but that doesn't seem to be the case for the musical piece posted by the user :-)

I relatively agree with Micrologus, your argument works if there are images to justify radical changes in language... in all other cases, the piece results in being incoherent. It's not that someone resolves and prepares all the sevenths, resolves the accidentals, uses moderately classical chords... and then at the end, at the last minute, goes wild... anyone would notice this change. If in a happy scene of a film at a certain point the cat were to die... then okay, if it is a piece of music with a beginning and an end... well, then things change, and it's not just me saying it, one only needs to take any piece written by great masters (and I am also referring to those of today). Coherence is directly proportional to the composer's ability.

I do not agree.

Without bothering the great masters of the past, but from a musical piece of any genre,

I expect nothing at all; this is fundamental to avoid listening with prejudices.

I accept it for what it is, I don't start saying it would have been better this way or that.

Naturally, the fundamental requirement must be that all of this was truly the composer's intention,
and not not knowing what to do...

As for me, I challenge the great masters, even from the present (as I was saying). For example, Morricone does not suffer from inconsistency, okay? But neither does Einaudi... just to change things up a bit... So do many others, whether we are talking about Jazz, Neo-Romanticism, Saturation, etc.

This does nothing to diminish the composer's intent... but not because I say so, because it has always been this way and is still this way today. Where on earth have you found these inconsistencies in high-level pieces? Perhaps with some examples one would understand immediately... obviously self-referentiality is excluded.

Videoclip wrote:

certamente if a piece starts one way and then ends another, something is wrong. I don't know if that's what CromaDiBrera meant

Personally no music video, it seems to me that there is a certain logic: there is an introduction, then a section that gradually grows and returns to its beginning at the end. It might not be liked, but in my opinion, I find it makes sense.

I only meant to say that caring for the harmonic aspect, even in this genre of music, leads to better results: it's what Williams, Zimmer, and any other composer of the genre treated by Yannick do, not just composers of the past. Certain procedures are avoided not out of respect for the rules, but simply because they sound bad. It's like knowing how to write well in Italian: syntax and grammar serve to better express what one wants to say. That's all.

What can I tell you, there are simply 2 different ways of thinking about art..

Your way seems classical to me, it responds to conventions, fine that's acceptable, much of the music produced even today follows the path you have indicated, but no other alternative solution scandals me:-)

Do some progressions sound bad?

Even thirds sounded bad to medieval composers; in fact, they mainly used fourths and fifths,

then at a certain point, what happened?

Everything that sounded good and was art began to sound bad for subsequent composers.

No, neither fifths, nor dissonances, nor unresolved leading tones, etc., sound bad; it is just a matter of

conditioning. In fact, fifths are more natural than fourths; not only that, but our tempered system allows for a slightly out-of-tune dominant chord, since the seventh does not exactly coincide with the same frequency as the harmonics, but no one has ever killed anyone else for this; on the contrary, we have reached the point of elevating to an art form and considering as derived from nature an approximated system of twelve sounds divided equally out of necessity......

Forget these discussions, just think that if the path along which music would have developed had been a different one, perhaps now we would be discussing who knows what interval and what system.

I have a head made for thinking, not for swallowing whatever is conditioned to me.

Anyway, since I am a scientist and I like to have fun with experiments, try to self-condition yourself for just one week, varying the tuning of your musical instrument...

After a week, if you return to our musical system, you will find it terribly ugly and out of tune :-)

Exactly Micologus... their system (the medieval one) was based on coherent rules

Regarding

>no other alternative solution scandals me

I fear that sooner or later we will have to start being scandalized again... given the garbage circulating on the web

Videoclip wrote:

Exactly Micologus... their system (the medieval one) was based on coherent rules

As far as

>no other alternative solution scandals me

I fear that sooner or later we will have to start being scandalized again... given the garbage circulating on the web

Even the garbage circulating on the web doesn't scandalize me; it is a social fact, look at it this way, never lose yourself in judgments, but analyze things in a detached manner.

Anyway, the example of medieval music relates to another discussion, and it wasn't about coherence; I have already answered you regarding coherence, namely that everyone has their own way of looking at art and things in general; I respect your classical point of view, but unfortunately I don't think like you.

Yes, but regarding consistency, I asked you for examples (preferably high-level ones) where inconsistency would be an exemplification of art... and you haven't indicated any to me. None come to mind for me; I would be happy if you gave me some indications... just to have more elements to base myself on.

Look, regarding musical examples, I am not offering them to you; I am not so crazy as to persist over a single word

At this point, I could ask you, but what is coherent?

Is it not also a social convention?

Who invented coherence and what are the parameters that define it?

What might be coherent for one person might not be at all for another.

Is something coherent only because it behaves the way you expect it to behave?

Only because it falls within standard parameters, and defined by whom?

I think it is better to open another Topic regarding this :-)

And what does all this have to do with art?

Have you ever thought that Beethoven's 5th Symphony has no effect on a savage?

I could go even further and tell you that there is no need even to bother primitive peoples,

it is enough to look at other ethnicities.

I don't think Bach is coherent for them, I believe that their culture is the only coherent thing for them, as much as it is obvious :-)

some passages remind me of the sarabande in D minor by Handel

in regards to the discussion on coherence/form I prefer not to go into detail...

Open content (youtube)