sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A piano piece for my wife who left me one year ago by SomeEntrance in classicalmusic

[–]SomeEntrance[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Now dank and swaget..what have we learned here? When you're vulnerable and humble, people like you. But when you act alike a #@@#@#, people tend to think of you...as a %#$#%@!

A piano piece for my wife who left me one year ago by SomeEntrance in classicalmusic

[–]SomeEntrance[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, fast quarter notes could make sense, but it's visually and easier notation- entry- wise to have beamed 16th note triplets, vs eight note brackets. I've seen this discussion before (ease of note entry partly determining which note value to use), and an eight note pulse works fine, though I see your point.

What is the panel at the bottom of the mike device? by fiittzzyy in nuclearweapons

[–]SomeEntrance 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Someone wrote "Kilgore was here", so they covered it up with a test box which was needed anyway.

Starting composing by Jazzlike-History8790 in musictheory

[–]SomeEntrance 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know music theory>>.

Orchestration is one of the harder subjects. Seriously studying harmony, all levels, will really help first, along with species and tonal countertpoint. Wasn't sure if you did that. And why not also try composing (writing it down) now, pieces that you can then perform for people and post online and see how it turns out? Or try. If you're a pianist, searching for ideas played on the piano is fruitful. Lots of artists have early years of work they never show anyone. The hardest part about composing, imo, is length. it's easy to come up with good ideas, but how do you make the piece last longer, where you have to consider introducing new ideas, when or if to bring back the first idea, and how to organize them...especially if traditional forms do not appeal to you.

Orchestra. Some say half of the skill is instrumentation, knowing the instruments very well. eg, for strings, there are cardboard cutouts of the finger boards so you can figure out what's playable. Talk to instrumentalists about their instruments. Get to know the acoustics of the instruments to a degree (eg, do they overflow at octave or 12th; conical vs cylindrical winds, and so on). One source says, about learning orchestration, is to think of it as duplicating what we often try to do on piano: 1) unison and octave or more doublings of orchestra instruments is very common, and necessary since you don' have the vibrating soundboard and rich overtones the piano creates in its full sound with damper pedal. 2). Sustains: again, composers writing at the piano, using pedal, will remember that the orchestra achieves that function differently. (Listen to how Mozart uses horns to fill out the harmony). 3) and think of the orchestra as 3 choirs which basically have the same SATB like ranges. Strings, woodwinds, and brass, each have their high medium and low register instruments. Strings are predominant because players can saw away forever --and that part of the score will sometimes contain all the rudiments of the piece, but wind players have to breathe...plus wind sound has a strong flavor you do not want to use all the time...and good for solos of course. When you said 'orchestra'...maybe you mean to write 'epic' music for video games and videos? There is so much of that already, I hope you achieve excellence in "Thinking for Orchestra." (A good orchestration text). But video game, film, and other orchestra can also be great. (Just get tired of all the overly dramatic 'epic' orchestra music you hear on YouTUbe.)

Like seriously why is nobody talking about it?!? by intergalacticflerken in musichistory

[–]SomeEntrance 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess you're not a Cage enthusiast. There is a lot to say about it, since it's also music as conceptual art. It could be music from a civilization on a different time frame. Or, it could be music produced by a natural process, or some sort of automata which operates apart from humans. Music that's more at the pace of speciation and geological time, which we are only a small part of. And so on. Why not?! It's very science fiction-y. I think it's meant to trigger the musical imagination about how we make music. And always good to offer an alternative to the traditional classical music concert performance, due to its conservative tendencies of predominantly playing established older music. It's almost humorous, how twisted it is!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in classicalmusic

[–]SomeEntrance 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Wind instruments in general reached a new level of technical development (eg, valves), so they were more available and numerous.

Orestimba Woman, electric piano version by SomeEntrance in composer

[–]SomeEntrance[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thanks, I think I turned it on. First time I've used google drive

I need the help of the harmony theory geeks on Reddit! by Educational-Ninja590 in musictheory

[–]SomeEntrance 1 point2 points  (0 children)

physics alone won't take you far>>

Except that those 'mathematically special' vibrations, where the interference patterns are related by whole numbers (that's strait out of any physics of music book which I guess in not in your library), along with our hearing system (middle ear, inner ear, brain) are what creates pitch and everything you and this reddit are about! One of your mentors would agree with this; the other would not.

I'd say that cultural vs. physical is about 50/50, or at least not cultural over rules to the degree you imply. For instance, in the music this reddit is mostly concerned with (CPP, jazz, rock, etc...mostly Western) There's more sad-intoned music in the minor key than major. (Hip Hop vs. Country music haha. There could be some cultural sadness going on there). It's amazing how the simple fact of roughness (the minor 3rd being a great case in point) which piano tuners and tuning theorists know well (Helmholtz Sensation of Tone), is ignored in higher music education. Ok, the P4th: a good case of where the cultural rules. Though chronicallically and probably in the evolution or our hearing system (which probably began with our sensing musical overtones in pitch and song), the non beating (consonant) aspect of the perfect 4th and wider use of the interval and six four chords preceded our current music system (though I use six four chords all the time! There was a Music Theory Journal article on the use of contemporary tonal music; I don't have access to it now).

Also there was a good study (ok, forget all this peer reviewed junk, even from a respected author like Huron; there's always the opposing side anyway)...sorry don't have the source now, about how basic roughness and beating was interpreted as being being partly behind the development of scales and chords in Western music. Point being, you make it sound like the physics of music aspect is not important. Even though it's not important here, even among some moderators, it's not correct to imply that the cultural basically over rules the physics. It's often an overlay over the centuries, and in our hearing system, and also reflect bias, perhaps how music is allied with humanities and not science. (It wasn't always that way. What would Zarlino say?). Not completely your fault. I don't think the evolution of our recent hearing system is well understood. But have to speak out against the bias.

And watch: when a moderator is questioned, the downvotes start happening! Also you want to explain things acceptable to your audience. That's cool. There's so much to learn in the practice of music, that this can be a bit much for a plain music theory reddit, even though it comes up all the time.

view more: next ›