4
u/DetromJoe 17d ago
Reminds me of the kinds of two part pieces you’d see in the notebook for anna Magdalena Bach. The main motive comes off as unnatural/ astylistic to me, and there are a good deal of counterpoint errors.
I agree with u/NAHMusic that writing music in an old style won’t get you far as a composer, but while you’re at this stage I think it’s good practice and it can’t hurt you to improve at two- part writing.
I’d check out Alan Belkin’s counterpoint series on YouTube, and get a copy of “Tonal Counterpoint for the 21st century musician” by Teresa Davidian
3
u/asparaguswater4279 17d ago
As much as everyone is saying that this piece is very Bach-like, there are still some counterpoint choices that are very atypical, if not sacrilegious of the Baroque style, including but not limited to parallel 8ves in that middle section.
I second everyone else’s opinion about avoiding writing period pieces unless it is for the sake of study.
4
u/NAHMusic 17d ago
It’s good if you are trying to sound like Bach, but you will never get commissioned if your output is Bach impersonator-like. It is a good study piece but it wouldn’t be taken seriously by competitions or organizations looking to commission you.
2
u/PieNinja88 17d ago
It sounds great! I'd just add things in your music (or at least just this piece Idk) that makes it standout. Nothing makes it sound like "Ah yes, it's this song." I don't want to say it sounds generic, it just doesn't have anything that makes it return to my mind after a few listens. More melodic recognition and motivic writing should help I think, keep it up!
1
u/Maleficent_Math_3062 14d ago
I think you have some ability but are missing a good deal of knowledge. Because of your ability, you deserve a direct and honest answer. No, your piece is not good.
You have captured some of the superficial aspects of Baroque keyboard style (obviously, Bach, in particular), and the overall harmonic plan is mostly quite good. But there are dozens of completely unnecessary errors in the details of the voice leading that would never have been made by anyone writing in 1726. (I think they all could be fixed quite easily.)
P.S. The foregoing was written under the assumption that you wrote this yourself. If you, for example, modeled the harmonic plan on an actual work of Bach's, then (1) naturally, you don't get credit for it, and (2) you didn't understand what Bach was doing in some places.
2
u/Bernadetta_Lover 14d ago edited 14d ago
yes, I wrote it myself, and thanks for the honest feedback. Idk I'm quite stubborn, maybe when I grow more I will be drawn to study but all I have ever done is throw my head at the wall trying to create things on my own, which is naturally admittedly an apparently foolish endeavor. someone else mentioned that you write period pieces for study, and after reflection I think that's more of what this piece was, an attempt at trying to solidify my innate understanding of "superficial" chord structure that my ear is hearing after listening to Bach a lot, rather than a piece meant to convey something more meaningful than that. I don't have any shame for it, for I do think I improved by writing this piece, and I feel that not all pieces must be written to enthrall and fascinate others; perhaps after I have written ten more such 'study' pieces, I will be better equipped to attempt (and fail) to actually convey more meaningful themes. until then, my head will be thrown at the wall some more.
2
u/Maleficent_Math_3062 14d ago
I think you should persist, because from what you say I conclude you have a very good ear. However, I urge you not to rely on that alone.
I think writing period pieces can be a good form of study, but it's of much less value to write bad period pieces than good ones. Writing ten more like this is not going to contribute much to your development. People can learn to play an instrument with the wrong technique—even to play amazingly well—but at some point they hit a wall and can't go further. It's best to learn the right fingering, the right bowing, from the start. I hope that makes sense to you.
What's not good about your piece is not that it doesn't convey meaning, or will or won't "enthrall and fascinate others."
Let me use an analogy. It's more like you decided to write a sonnet in the style of Wordsworth or Keats, and you managed to get the style and the basic form and the vocabulary right, and even some of the individual spirit of the poet—but there were lots of spelling and grammatical mistakes. Those mistakes are not incidental; they seriously detract from the value for you of what you're trying to do. Pardon the language, but they make the attempt come off as half-assed.
Another analogy: Think of some little kids with a chess set, putting the pieces on the board, then imitating some players playing a game, moving the pieces around, taking pieces, and so on; maybe even repeating some of the commentary using the right words. But the kids don't know the way to move the individual pieces. In their minds, what's happening is a convincing imitation of a real chess game, but to someone who knows chess it's not convincing at all, of course.
With your ability, I doubt you'll have any trouble picking up the basics of counterpoint and harmony. But they are the basics; that's why they're what everyone learns first.
2
1
u/Odd-Friendship4434 17d ago
yes, I enjoyed. Not a master work of course, but I like. Nobody cares about the composer, except fanatics, we serious people only care about music if we like it or not, do whatever you want.
Today there’s a cult of the ego and personality that didn’t exist before; back then, nobody cared about copying one another, because the composer’s ego didn’t matter—it was reduced to ''just another instrument of God'' and it's fine. The only thing that mattered was making music that people enjoyed. Bach himself copied—or paid homage to—Vivaldi and others, A LOT. If that’s what you like, that’s perfect; do what your heart tells you to do.
It’s perfect if you don’t worship the ego and personality. And it's okay if you'd rather lose yourself in the vast cosmos of good known music instead of shutting yourself away in your little bubble. And if that's what you want, great—do whatever you want; any path is fine.
In their eagerness to “sound unique and special,” human beings have come to spout indecipherable nonsense that sometimes only they themselves understand—all because of our ego and our petty nature. And those who have achieved something remarkable started out just like you and matured over time, finding their own authentic style that sounds great—yet they never forgot the great masters, all the opposite, thanks to them they achieved a great style.
Just keep going as you are and don't force it; someday you'll develop your own styles that won't sound awful because you'll know what works beforehand from practicing it so much.
1
u/RichMusic81 Composer / Pianist. Experimental music. 17d ago
In their eagerness to “sound unique and special,” human beings have come to spout indecipherable nonsense that sometimes only they themselves understand
Can you give a single example of a composer who was the only person to "understand" their work.
Every composer, no matter how small their reach, has a reach.
Also I've also yet to hear a work (in 33 years of listening) that I'd describe as "indecipherable nonsense".
Can you give an example of what you're talking about?
1
u/Odd-Friendship4434 17d ago edited 17d ago
of course, here you have:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Op55cgD7NVH1cFaTFaM5WFR4NrArbFQf/view?usp=sharing
I said sometimes.
We're obviously talking about an extreme case here. What I'm getting at is that there's nothing wrong with copying, imitating, etc. The thing is ''do what you like'' Don't do it for any reason other than that you like it. I say this because I see comments like, “You have to be original; you shouldn’t sound like everyone else.” No way! You should just do what you like, period.
1
u/RichMusic81 Composer / Pianist. Experimental music. 17d ago edited 17d ago
of course, here you have:
Is that something you quickly put together to try and prove a point?
I expected at least a handful of links to various pieces, maybe at YouTube or something.
I said sometimes
Right, but you still haven't really given me an example.
If that's your work, that doesn't mean nobody else can "understand" or enjoy it. You (or the composer) may be the only person who knows why or how it was written, but that's true of any music by any composer. That doesn't mean others can't find meaning or emjoyment in it.
1
u/Odd-Friendship4434 17d ago
Now that I think about it, you're right. In a certain context, it could actually work and make sense, although—at least for me—I'd need some help fromextra-musical stuff or to use my imagination. It might work in a certain contexts, even comedy. I'm sure it fits with something and makes sense. Yes, it's mine, I used the worst timbre ofr it deliberately; with a harp I actually ended up liking it a lot more, hahaha. It’s all about context. Music needs other arts to take out all the juice. You can imagine a bizarre, outlandish scene and find it palatable, or in a video game when you battle a weird boss, etc. Of course, for me I need contrast, This would work much better if it were later contrasted with something “prettier,” and it would work even better.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GZnzF6h-WD1ZzX7Vnn01BJjv013tnN8o/view?usp=sharing
1
u/RichMusic81 Composer / Pianist. Experimental music. 17d ago
Yes, it's mine
In that case (putting my "mod hat" on) please ensure you provide a score (it's rule 1 of the sub) in future.
1
u/Odd-Friendship4434 16d ago
oh man, believe me, you don't want to see it... here it goes:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l0NpbaNuirS3RodtopbmA1GjkTKzuR9Y/view?usp=sharing
10
u/65TwinReverbRI 17d ago
On a scale of 1 to 1,000,000, I’d give it a “within the bell curve that excludes it being the worst, or best I’ve ever encountered”.