It's been forever since I have posted anything on Ichigo's... It's due to many many different reasons, but I digress. And yes, I am still alive and composing. So while I am back for a little bit, I'll share my latest little creation. It's definitely not anything close to what I'd call my magnum opus, but it's a refreshing little suite that I wrote because I needed a break from serialism and all that ooey-gooey contemporary stuff I love.

The Littlest Suite

Well, it's not the most complicated or intricate piece you'll ever hear. It's, as the title implies, a suite of five movements plus a postlude for strings. Each of the movement has a title and is inspired by a different style of music:

I. "Barbican Station" - after English folk music, more precisely Vaughan-Williams' Six English Folk Miniatures

II. "Hovedøya" - after Norwegian fiddle music

III. "Cafe in Palermo" - after a Sicilian dance rhythm, and it's recycled from an old piece of mine

IV. "Manuc's Inn" - after Romanian folk music, more precisely Bartok's Romanian Folk Dances

V. "In Suzhou" - after Chinese music, and yet another recycled piece

Postlude. "Rue Petit Champlain" - supposedly after Canadian music, but then if you ask me, or anyone, what defines Canadian music, I don't know if you'll get an answer at all

~~~

But yeah. That's it. D:

In some ways the first section of this piece reminded me a little bit more of Russian music than English music (aside from the Dorian Melody), but maybe that's just because I've been studying a lot of Russian music this year.

On the end of the Romanian section, I would have liked it a little better if you had ended on some kind of chord based on the five so as to imitate that Eastern European practice (which Bartok does a lot from what I've seen), and also so that there's a little more suspense before the next section of the suite begins. The way you have it works fine, though; this is entirely a matter of taste.

The beginning of the Canadian section was really nice, but then it felt like it was pretty hard to follow melodically after that.

The piece as a whole is quite nice. Why was the recording quality so bad, though? There's a lot of background noise and it sounds a little muffled. I guess it's not that big of a deal since this is a piece which is meant to be performed, but it would have been easier to follow aurally if the recording had been a little clearer.

It's good to have you back. :)

In some ways the first section of this piece reminded me a little bit more of Russian music than English music (aside from the Dorian Melody), but maybe that's just because I've been studying a lot of Russian music this year.



I feel it's the latter... :P To me, Russian folk music is, to me anyway, more metrically tidy, which is why Stravinsky, Prokofiev and friends loved to and can mess with it so much. Certain note length extensions and metre change in the first movement is where the essence of the folk quality lies, I feel.

I guess I wasn't thinking in terms of rhythm so much as harmony. Also, when I say "studying Russian music" I should be clear that I mostly mean learning the Borodin "Polovtsian Dances" and Rachmaninoff's "All-Night Vigil" and performing them. I have studied a fair amount of Stravinsky this year as well, but not from a cultural standpoint.

Anyway, it's not really that important; you clearly know what you want out of these.

Hey Sir Dot!

I don't know what else to say other than the orchestration was great. I can't remember anything I heard though (I listened to it when you first posted it). It's nice to hear your music again! And by the way, congrats on your Concerto Grosso!

I guess I haven't really been posting anything that I consider serious since... 2008, or even earlier. D: I blame the fact that I never have any recordings of the live performances of my music, but it's also my fault for writing all these pieces with specific effects.

However, my most recent work-in-progress seems to be fairly conventional, thanks to the fact that I'm more conservative with the instruments I play.

Concerto for Oboe, English horn and Bass Clarinet - Movement I

I don't play bass clarinet, but I do play the former two instruments. The conception of this piece was basically from the fact that I haven't written enough for the instruments I play. As usual, my serious works are mostly derived from serialism, this one is the same. However, also as usual, I break all the rules once I get all the basic materials I need. I mean, Schoenberg went back to tonality before his death for a reason.

While this is a concerto, I did not ask for a very large orchestra. Some instruments are removed for convenience and common sense's sake (e.g. since there are two oboe soloists already, there are no oboes in the orchestra). The brass section is also greatly reduced so that it won't drown out the woodwind soloists.

The first movement is an Allegro Moderato. Not really much of the traditional Allegro-Sonata form, but as you will hear, it is quite structured. It's also very short because oboists who hardly practice, like myself, usually don't have the same endurance and stamina as an average clarinetists do. Blame the reeds. Basically, the entire piece is very much catered to myself as a player.

Another thing that you might find different is that the soloists' lines are relatively sparse. It's mostly due to the fact that I treated the first movement as an overture.

But yes, have a listen for yourself. :)

i especially like the part after the big timpani then the sudden woodwind. it was a very abrupt gesture... but fluid as well. kinda like landing in a pool of pillows after a big fall.

i gotta say though... and i say this because it seems like a good time to say it. as a guy who doesn't really get the full idea of musical theory... i feel like many of the composers here are neglecting a catchy melody. perhaps you guys all have good ones hiding somewhere but i feel like you are very caught up in new techniques that you forget why we loved your music. sorry i had to say it in here sir dotdotdot...

Glad you're back. :)


It's also very short because oboists who hardly practice, like myself, usually don't have the same endurance and stamina as an average clarinetists do. Blame the reeds.

As a clarinetist, and (former) oboist, I couldn't agree more. :heh: Back on topic:

The beginning 30 seconds reminds me much of one of my own pieces (the band one I composed, 2nd movement that I haven't released). There's a hint of Stravinsky throughout the whole piece (Rite of Spring-esque? or is it just me?). I really like the use of rhythmic motif throughout the whole piece.

For some reason, it doesn't sound to me like a concerto (i.e. as in the classical - romantic era). It may be because I haven't heard a concerto based off of twelve-tone technique, but I do get what you mean by treating the piece as an overture.

I don't really have too much to say other than that. It's very well-structured, and well-written, at least to my ears. :heh:


i gotta say though... and i say this because it seems like a good time to say it. as a guy who doesn't really get the full idea of musical theory... i feel like many of the composers here are neglecting a catchy melody. perhaps you guys all have good ones hiding somewhere but i feel like you are very caught up in new techniques that you forget why we loved your music. sorry i had to say it in here sir dotdotdot...

I'd like to discuss this on another thread, but there are always the questions: do composers really need a melody, and what is a melody, necessarily? The piece that Dot just posted, as I mentioned, seems to rely on motif, but could these motifs be melodies in some way?

i gotta say though... and i say this because it seems like a good time to say it. as a guy who doesn't really get the full idea of musical theory... i feel like many of the composers here are neglecting a catchy melody. perhaps you guys all have good ones hiding somewhere but i feel like you are very caught up in new techniques that you forget why we loved your music. sorry i had to say it in here sir dotdotdot...


No there is definitely a melody here, it just dances through the different sections of the orchestra its just a hard to pick up. I think most of that is because of these sound fonts, and the balance of them. I imagine in a live recording, it would be perfectly clear.

In any case, I thought it was a great piece. It was very Stravinsky-ish, especially because of the slightly "lyrical" melody under all of those hits in the brass. I thought that was a very effective effect.

well... still.

Well, Ander, for me, music doesn't equal to 'catchy melodies' or 'pretty harmony' or whatever you would like to label it. Music is a subjective art. While you might enjoy 'catchy melodies' in music, others might enjoy the intelligence, the structure, the timbre, and to stretch it even further, the popularity that music brings to them. Does that make these people wrong? Not at all. They can enjoy music in different perspectives; this is why music is such a wonder: we are all alone in finding what appeals to us the most. It's all about how they want to justify their likes and dislikes, but not supposed 'laws' of aesthetics. In simplest terms: beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

i understand. that's why i didn't disagree on anyone's statement. just like how you didn't disagree on my statement regarding a minor absence of melody.

don't get me wrong. i get the idea that you wanted to conduct an experiment. maybe i was being to quick to judge.... but it wasn't just you that i had that feeling. it's good to experiment with things... but now it's time to know when to use the things you learned in a good way... more so than the right way.

I actually disagree with your idea that my piece is lacking in melody. There are indeed melodies in the piece, as Etaroko pointed out. The meaning of a melody doesn't always equal 'tonal', 'pretty' or 'beautiful'. Melody is an abstract concept and it is free for the composer to take liberty on how to give it a definition. A composer can consider a tone row to be a melody if he wants to; it's how he justifies it that counts.

Furthermore, I feel that you still don't understand what I was saying in my previous post: there is no 'good' way for music. Nor a 'right' way. There's only one way: the way the composer wants it to be.

Well, Ander, for me, music doesn't equal to 'catchy melodies' or 'pretty harmony' or whatever you would like to label it. Music is a subjective art. While you might enjoy 'catchy melodies' in music, others might enjoy the intelligence, the structure, the timbre, and to stretch it even further, the popularity that music brings to them. Does that make these people wrong? Not at all. They can enjoy music in different perspectives; this is why music is such a wonder: we are all alone in finding what appeals to us the most. It's all about how they want to justify their likes and dislikes, but not supposed 'laws' of aesthetics. In simplest terms: beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

This post is beautiful.

Out of curiosity, is Schoenberg your favorite serialist composer?

For some reason, I actually wish you had used a little bit more of the Sonata structure such as Bartok did with one of his semi-serialist string quartets (I am trying to find which one), particularly in the way he "modulates", so to speak, when introducing his second theme. Nevertheless, I thought the piece was quite nice and it made a lot of sense. I like the piano part especially.

A lot of Bartok's pieces use the sonata form. Meanwhile, because it is of that reason that I avoided it. I mean, sonata in serialist idiom has been quite overused throughout 20th century.

there is no 'good' way for music. Nor a 'right' way. There's only one way: the way the composer wants it to be.
But, with that said, the composer should try to keep their audience in mind. All composers, whether they realize it or not, compose for an audience.

They may not know who their intended audience is at the time they make the composition, and in fact, they might be the only person who ever listens to their own composition, in which case, the composer is the audience. But either way, it's generally good for the composer to try to compose in such a way that their audience will want to keep listening, otherwise, the composition is likely to not be experienced in full (i.e. people may tune-out from, or turn-off the music).

That's just my little opinion. =)

A lot of Bartok's pieces use the sonata form. Meanwhile, because it is of that reason that I avoided it. I mean, sonata in serialist idiom has been quite overused throughout 20th century.

Well, I know he supposedly used "sonata" form in a lot of his pieces, but this is one in which I feel it is well justified specifically because of this modulation. In any case, I didn't mean that I wanted you to actually adopt a sonata form, I simply mean that I wish that you would "modulate", so to speak, away from the harmonies surrounding the original form/transposition/sets of your row to something that sounds notably different, and then come back in the end. I think mostly that would be because that's what my professors would want me to do, though.

But, with that said, the composer should try to keep their audience in mind. All composers, whether they realize it or not, compose for an audience.

They may not know who their intended audience is at the time they make the composition, and in fact, they might be the only person who ever listens to their own composition, in which case, the composer is the audience. But either way, it's generally good for the composer to try to compose in such a way that their audience will want to keep listening, otherwise, the composition is likely to not be experienced in full (i.e. people may tune-out from, or turn-off the music).

That's just my little opinion. =)

While your audience-composer argument is quite valid, there also comes the argument of what is the intention of a piece of music. The audience is constantly thriving on what they already know and are comfortable with. Meanwhile, it's the composer's duty to expand the audience's minds by experimenting new things. Therefore, if a composer merely caters the need of audience, music will become stagnant and eventually pointless because both parties (the audience and the composer) are desensitized to change. You can compare it to movies: a lot of movies today share the similar structure of premise-complications-buildup-climax-resolution; however, because we've seen that too many times, it gets boring for those who realized that fact.

Personally, I don't like to create what people already know about music. I mean, 'catchy melodies', 'lyrical songs', and 'poignant arias' have all been done and understood by the audience; there's no need to create more duplicates of the same concept. There are things to draw from these concepts of the past, but I personally don't find it very inspiring to merely recreate these concepts again and again when Faure, Puccini or whoever had done it justice already.

@ Deathraider: I see what you mean now. I have thought of transposing it for the recurrence of the theme, but the reason I didn't is because of the range of the soloists. Asides from the ease of facility in that particular, per se, 'key', it also exposes the most expressive range of oboe and English horn, that's why I kept it the same throughout. Perhaps if it wasn't a concerto I might have transposed the row.

Personally, I don't like to create what people already know about music. I mean, 'catchy melodies', 'lyrical songs', and 'poignant arias' have all been done and understood by the audience; there's no need to create more duplicates of the same concept. There are things to draw from these concepts of the past, but I personally don't find it very inspiring to merely recreate these concepts again and again when Faure, Puccini or whoever had done it justice already.

but the fact is that there have been people who have done that already.... to the point where the audience thought the whole orchestra was still tuning their instruments.

but i guess i understand what you are saying. i thought about it and it makes sense. looking for something new to incorporate into your understanding. am i right? speaking of 'right'... i firmly believe that there's a difference between good and right. if one is not good nor right... then what is it? i think the simplest way to answer that is... "then one is bad or wrong."

but with all due respect... you know that there are things that i don't know, but thanks for the open-mindedness to ease my frustration.

but i guess i understand what you are saying. i thought about it and it makes sense. looking for something new to incorporate into your understanding. am i right? speaking of 'right'... i firmly believe that there's a difference between good and right. if one is not good nor right... then what is it? i think the simplest way to answer that is... "then one is bad or wrong."



But who is there to say what is 'good' or 'right' music? I don't think anyone has the ability to define that. As I've said numerous times: music is a subjective art. Each person understands music in a different way. You need to realize that 'different' does not equal 'wrong'. It's merely something you're not used to.

But who is there to say what is 'good' or 'right' music? I don't think anyone has the ability to define that. As I've said numerous times: music is a subjective art. Each person understands music in a different way. You need to realize that 'different' does not equal 'wrong'. It's merely something you're not used to.

i never said different is the same as bad or wrong. like... i understand that there's more to music than what not. some people write music for the sake of emotions and others write just to experiment. i understand that. i think we all understand that. what's the point of sculpting the most detail foot of a statue if no one was there to tell you that you are sculpting the foot backward...

i never said different is the same as bad or wrong. like... i understand that there's more to music than what not. some people write music for the sake of emotions and others write just to experiment. i understand that. i think we all understand that. what's the point of sculpting the most detail foot of a statue if no one was there to tell you that you are sculpting the foot backward...

You're still missing my point: who is to say the sculpture is backward? What is backward or forward? Who is there to say art has an axiom of what is 'normal'? I don't think it's possible for anyone to decide there's such thing as 'normal'; hence your statement still doesn't apply to my previous argument.

@ Deathraider: Oh, and nope, Schoenberg isn't my favourite serialist composer because serialism is a style of music, not another realm of art itself. However, yes, Schoenberg is one of my favourite composer.

You're still missing my point: who is to say the sculpture is backward? What is backward or forward? Who is there to say art has an axiom of what is 'normal'? I don't think it's possible for anyone to decide there's such thing as 'normal'; hence your statement still doesn't apply to my previous argument.

in a way... isn't the term "music theory" same as "normal"? sure it's still a theory but that's what theory is, right? A norm.

so... you are conducting an experiment to ascertain... to contribute to this grand realm of music theory?

look, i'm sure i'm wrong at this point. but just because we don't understand music like you guys do... doesn't mean we can tell you if the foot you're sculpting is facing backward. we live and observe. if the shape of the foot is inverted, a 3 year old can recognize the oddity.

First of all: I don't really consider my Concerto to be experimental much or at all; it's a very tame 20th century piece; in other words, it's written in an idiom that's a little more than a century old. Secondly, your belief that music theory = normal is rather... no offence, shallow. 'Music theory' in the West is very different from the music theory from India, or China, or Turkey, you name it. So if you tell me theory from the West, which is arguably 'unified' during the 1400's and 1500's, is 'normal', you're pretty much saying Indian music, which has history of thousands of years is 'abnormal'. That's pretty dang bold statement you're making. So you tell me what 'normal' is. =P

And your final comment about the three year old thing has brought your understanding back to a full circle of misunderstanding: how can you be sure it's backward? Why do you believe in societal standards for art? Furthermore, what's wrong with 'oddity'?

you're right. i was too inexperienced to know what you were intending to do with your piece. maybe your piece meant to subdue the melody with other sources of music, which i don't know or even recognize. but isn't music universal? isn't that what we thrive for? doesn't that have a meaning anymore?

i don't know. don't get me wrong though. it's not like i don't appreciate your piece. if that was the case i wouldn't even care to leave any comments... i think. however, it's quite obvious that i need to know more about music in order to appreciate more.

about the theory though... you say it is different from culture to culture... which is very true, but at the same time it is the norm in their culture to have that theory. i'll end it by saying that you and i possess different culture.... and "no culture is better than the other."

you're right. i was too inexperienced to know what you were intending to do with your piece. maybe your piece meant to subdue the melody with other sources of music, which i don't know or even recognize. but isn't music universal? isn't that what we thrive for? doesn't that have a meaning anymore?


Composers usually don't intend to thrive to create universal music. It's the language of music itself that is universal. Your statement of 'all composers thrive to create universal music' is practically saying 'all composers thrive to write music that everyone likes', which is, quite evidently, impossible. Contrarily, music is a medium to convince of other people of ideas; however, each person's interpretation is different. So music has 'meanings', but not the other way around. If music's purpose is to be your type of 'universal', we'd all be robots.

This conversation seems familiar! Haha...

Preaching about music is the composer's other job. :P

and i'm just a reminder