Sil

At what point does music become so complex that the composer can finally say "This is the only way to interpret this music?" 10 notes? 100? 1000? What if I said one of Beethoven's super-emotionally charged final quartets borrows a phrase from a Bach fugue? What if I said Vaughan Williams took a power and uplifting English anthem by Tallis and turned it into a somber and dramatic piece for strings? Aren't these guys going against your "law of ultimate interpretation?" Why make your work known if you know someone is just going to screw it up with their own un-composer-like interpretation? Why bother adding tempo markings?

This is true. Oh, so true. Many performances of Mozart move people to tears, many do not. What was Mozart's original intention? $$$$$$$$$$ Like I said before, classical music up until the Romantic era was hardly emotional or expressive at all. If anything, it was expressing a devotion to God or a devotion to skill or a devotion to dinner parties. I'm sure one could even argue the best interpretation of a Bach fugue is one played by a computer. Write the notes and let the performer sort it out: that's the classical way (and the impressionist, and the expressionist, and the avant-garde-ist, etc.)

Why? Just so everyone else can go fuck it up?

How can you say that any number of those kids wouldn't have developed it as well? Or to take calculus and make it better? Not the best analogy, but I see what you're saying. But you're not making a convincing case as to why the composer thinks his interpretation of his notes, notes that in all cosmic possibility could have been written by someone else at some other time, is the only legitimate interpretation, that is, if he does think that at all. What if tomorrow we found out Beethoven's Fur Elise was ripped off another composer? What if it was originally meant to be played Allegro con fuoco? If we truly knew how the music was to be interpreted, we would have millions more dynamic markings than we already do. But no, the composer understands his or her music will ultimately be left up to interpretation, so that's how we should understand it too.

OUCH! That's a long shot. Mitsuda does write some nice music, but what do you mean by "depth?" I remember discussing long ago how he has a knack for the Irish instrumentation and catchy melodies, but no talent at all writing for full orchestra as per the Xenosaga orchestrations (and I say this as someone who's studied orchestration for many, many years.) We actually have very different styles: him being a game composer and me being unable to decide if I'm a Neo-Romantic or a James Horner-wannabe.

I'm sorry, I forgot to respond to this directly. Though I have no proof that more skilled composers might have existed, I am simply extrapolating this from the notion that even today the more "skilled" composers go largely unnoticed as well, even in the wide world of academia or the concert hall.

This is ultimately where your argument loses credibility. You are putting classical music on the pedestal and saying the original composers' intent is ultimately the best. I'm a composer and I don't think my own interpretation of my own music is necessarily best. Why would anyone else think any differently? Beethoven's and Mozart's music survived because of their interpretations by performers. Heck, Mozart and Beethoven didn't even get a chance to interpret their final, and arguably "best" works (they were too dead.)

I think this is a good argument for why performers are so invaluable. Without them you wouldn't have a decent interpretation of music you would otherwise never have heard at all. You might think performers are a dime a dozen, but let me tell you this: so are composers. For every Mozart or Beethoven there were hundreds if not thousands of others, many of them more skilled than those guys, but they just never made it out of their generation. And in all likelihood it was because their music was interpreted poorly, or maybe not performed at all.

You're doing it again. You're assuming expression is mutually exclusive with emotion. Most people are often surprised by the fact most classical music is emotionless. Expressive, yes, but typically void of any more meaning than the composer's self-satisfaction with his or her own skill. Sure, anyone can attach their emotions to it whether they're a casual listener or an experienced performer, but rarely is there any inherent pathos in genres like the ones Bach, Mozart, or even Beethoven wrote in. We don't know if Sorabji was expressing an emotion in his work. In any case, his message is not transferable to the performer because it is utterly and eternally ambiguous.

I see what you're doing, xRisingForce. You're putting thoughts into the minds of composers by assuming they are these wet blankets of emotions loading their music with pathos and laboring over each and every note they put to paper. I think it's very arrogant of anyone to assume they know what the composer was thinking when he or she wrote a piece, and what emotions are being expressed if any. No melody is inherently more expressive than another and anyone can interpret the same melody, despite who composed it, to express anything they want. Just because someone came up with the sequence of notes first doesn't mean they get to attach their emotional connotations to it.

Incorrect. The piano roll is much faster, and I orchestrate using staff notation in Finale all the time. The main benefits of piano roll are: -stretching notes to get the correct duration -dragging notes to anywhere within the measure without worrying about rests or placement (Finale is terrible at this) -not having to worry about the correct accidentals (sharps, flats, naturals) -not having to play with crescendos to get the exact volumes you want (the ability to draw volume is ingenious) -not having to play with tempo markings (again, you draw the tempo changes) -quick cutting and pasting with the ability to blend or overwrite -moving groups of notes without transposing (don't know if newer versions of Finale do this) -other reasons I can't think of at the moment Trust me, the piano roll is so much faster with so much more control. It would actually be unprofessional to use just staff notation.

Sounds good, lots of imitation. The only discrepancy I can hear that makes it sound un-Bach-like is the lack of secondary dominants and other chromatic chords, so it's very modal. For example, the retransition to the dominant F minor at 0:40 sounds out of place because there was no C7 chord, just a passing E natural over an A. Other than that it's really intricately arranged. Good work. Did you get the title from my piece?

Why do they have to change the ending? I thought it was perfect the way it was. Human corruption destroyed the world but there is still hope for salvation, etc. etc. The feelgood movie of the 90s.

I think the orchestra is string-heavy and needs a lot more brass. Even the horns are really tame and panned to the far extremes. Pretty much every cello part that carries the rhythm should do so with a good trombone section staccato, especially around 2:54. I think it's also because the bass guitar seems to drop out there. Also, the descending bass line at 3:03 needs a deeper bass sound. At 3:08 it sounds like the cascade effect in the strings needs brass sfzs on each entry (there are several methods of doing this.) Talking about brass staccatos, the ending definitely needs them. This is merely all from an orchestration standpoint.

It's always sad to see the torch being passed from one generation to another in all the arts. Admittedly our nostalgia makes us a bit biased, but I've always wondered if sometimes we're living in the shadow of the past. If we know what games ought to be like, how comes we're not the ones making them now? Can you even imagine how you'd top your favorite game of all time? It's the same way for me and classical music. If greatness has already been achieved, and you recognize it, it makes it kind of difficult to do any better.

Actually it's just a suggestion in case you wanted to vary up the rising bass pattern in case you feel it's repeating too much. I think in a rock context rather than orchestral it is also used quite a bit, especially considering rpg battle music. Maybe as a bridge to connect sections, create suspense (especially if you used a dominant G harmony instead of C), etc.

I was just talking about something similar to this in another thread: The rising bass line sounds great, but maybe there is opportunity to fixate the ostinato on a bass key, in this case C. For example, timpani, cellos, trombones, trumpet (at least one of the trumpets) could all be fixated on the rhythm in C while the horns, violins, guitar, etc. are all doing their own harmonic movement. The contrast between a pedal point and moving upper harmonies can sound really great in most cases. Also, make sure the timpani isn't rising with the harmony ever. It's fine just playing C with some Gs thrown in off the beat.

The similarity to Across the Stars might be a little too close for comfort. Instead of trying to make a melody fit someone else's harmony, why not just make the melody and harmony fit someone else's style? Whenever there's a harp ostinato I always have to mention the option of putting in bass pizzicatos. The oboe solo sounds strained and unrealistic. There's no vibrato, and you'll be hard pressed to find any instance of oboe playing that lacks vibrato. At 1:00 the staccato violins sound out of place. If you truly want staccatos there, use the entire string section in four octaves, which means taking the bass off its pedal. 1:12 shows a lack of development (stagnation) because there was no harmonic change, or change in the cello accompaniment, etc. Maybe the cellos could play the bassoon line and the harmony could be sustained by pizz basses or trombone chords or both. You may want to reimagine the portion beginning at 1:52 because the sustained cello accompaniment makes no sense against the stabbing trombones and col legnos. Also, your harmonies are block chords, which goes against the nature of the ostinato. Typically you want a fundamental harmony, let's say B (don't worry about major or minor modalities) and have your ostinato instruments (usually timpani, cellos, basses, trombones) stay in that pattern while the harmonies change above. After the key has been iterated for a while, you can shift the harmony to a close neighbor to add suspense. Holst's Mars is a good example of this. I like the harmonies in the trumpets (and I think violins) beginning at 2:30, which I think would work well over a fixed-key ostinato, although the violins could be much louder, doubled with winds if possible. You're probably wondering how to make the choir sound better at 2:57, and I think one solution is to use less syllables, and to use other instruments to help them out in unisons. For example, if you didn't have a choir, you should still know where the melody is in the orchestra. Again the cello line is too sustained against everything else, especially your percussion. Also, where is the timpani? A choral section is the perfect opportunity to use a fixed-key ostinato with timpani, as per Carmina Burana and its countless imitations. You can still have the harmonic progression you want, just not in the bass. By 4:18 the piece has just become too stagnant because the cello refuses to do much else besides help along the block harmonies, hence the trombone stabs and non-timpanic percussion just aren't having the effect you want. You need to have more models to base your work on, just like how you began with a reference to Across the Stars. The harpsichord section sounds good, but I think like anything with harp and orchestra, it could benefit from pizz bass. Let me know if you have any questions.

Looks like someone's been reading the philosophy forum. Actually, emergent behavior, like biological determinism and any system that is infinitely deductive - if you apply it to music, you're in for an endless debate between objectivism and relativism.

Mahler seemed to be obsessed with the very opening of Beethoven's 9th where it seemed like he was "tuning the universe" as one would tune an orchestra: one long sustained note/chord. Mahler's version usually consists of a large open chord in the strings, with some violins and winds acting out nature sounds. A lot of composers have used this effect since, typically with string harmonics or other effects, like in the Ives. Mahler's most famous use of the effect is in the opening of his Symphony No. 1, near the end of No. 2, and some parts of 3 and 7. It just seems to be the perfect setting to create some bird calls or whatever. I thought that to enrich those long sustained chords you could add little motivic gestures in other instruments, similar to how Beethoven, Mahler, Ives do. Not much differentiates jazz harmonies from impressionist harmonies, but there is a difference nonetheless. Typically it's the use of "wrong" sounding notes, like wholetone scales, chromatic harmonic movement, or distant keys (like moving from F major to C# major.) The Zelda lullaby itself is more jazz than it is impressionist because quite frankly it's too tonal. While 7ths, 9ths, 11th, 13ths are commonly found in impressionist music, if you use them all the time it's going to sound more like jazz. In impressionist music you usually aren't able to tell if you're in a major or minor key. Debussy's Nuages is a great example of this: full of "wrong" harmonies juxtaposed against each other. http://youtube.com/watch?v=i3ch1GfmLkw

Sounds good. The first one reminds me of the opening of Mahler's 9th, or even Wolfgang-Korngold. I think it could use more drastic key changes in the Romantic tradition to avoid nasty pedal points, anything that could catch the listener completely off guard. For example, it ends right now in F major, so you could just restate the theme again in C# major, probably in the lower range (cellos, bassoons.) The second one is giving me some Ives "Unanswered Question" vibes and I don't really know where it could go to give it some structure. Again, drastic key changes to unexpected keys might help, and pedal points might actually benefit you here. I'm thinking the kind of atmosphere you want to create should sound like those "nature" moments in Mahler's symphonies where strings are all sustained and flutes/winds/"off stage brass" go crazy in between. Again, thinking along the lines of Ives and Mahler, a trumpet solo might be effective here too. "Wrong notes" in the melody line also tend to create a neat atmosphere, and avoids any cheesy jazz chords that might pop up.

Don't want to derail with my ramblings, so check your pm.

I don't think it's so much a problem that he feels everyone should be like him, rather that there aren't enough people like him. He obviously can't be against everything non-orchestral, but I'm sure when approached by aspiring composers who want to be like him he's going to be a huge proponent of classical music, because that's what got him where he is today. Admittedly a rarity in that business.

It's not elitism, it's conservatism. Soule is definitely a traditionalist. That's just his style. I think it's awesome how a question on his career origins (a rather dull question that he probably gets asked daily) turned into a rant about academia vs. technology. You can tell he cares a great deal about composing game music and how terrible it'd be if the industry were overrun by tool-dependent sound designers (the bad kind, not the good kind.) I like the quote about the History and Discovery channels, because stock music is a cheap solution that edges out a lot of real talent. Luckily games have avoided this for the most part. He's also right about market oversaturation for composers. It's probably one of the most hellish job markets in the world because technology makes it so easy. Aren't most indie directors scoring their own films these days?

If you depend too much on your upper voices and melody, you're going to run into walls, especially in a piece this quick and rhythm-driven. It's the bass line that is going to move this piece forward, and in light-hearted orchestra pieces, that bass is 99.9% always covered by pizz cellos and basses. As for counterpoint, the bass line gives you an opportunity to imitate lines and rhythms heard in the upper voices that can then be used to drive the piece forward as well. Here's an example of how you can easily use the bass for rhythmic clarity, both using pizz and counterpoint: http://jeremyrobson.com/example.mid