In the spirit of recent threads on this Composers’ Forum, I have decided to seek advice for the new SONG I am writing. Approximate durations of notes are indicated in the newly accepted method: by lines ( _____).

Bb__ G#__ F#__ Ab__ | Cbb__ Bb__ A#_______ |
G#__ Ab__ G#_______ | A#__ C#__ Db______ |

Although there are 13 notes so far, I think this is truly a Twelve-tone, serial song. I am now ready to start the retrograde phase, and need to know what everyone thinks.

Ed

Why on earth go for Cbb instead of Bb?

Anyhow... you've got 5 G# (and Ab) and 4 A# (given that Cbb is Bb and this is A#)...

so officially it's not a 12-tone series in any case... It sounds might interesting though Ed... So keep at it!

Hi Nikolas,

I know you are busy, but give this one a try.

Ed

Dodecaphonic, twelve tone serialism, uses all notes in chromatic scale without giving any one of the notes more emphasis and all the notes have to be played once before moving on.

Here, you have A# and Bb, G# and Ab, C# and Db. These repeted notes will make room for tonal centers, so I do not believe this is twelve tone serialism.

I don't worry much about all those troublesome structural rubrics - they seem to stifle my creativity! Have you tried my new Serial Song?

Schubertslieder, you have given an admirably serious reply, and I can't tell if you are playing along, or if you have missed LoPresti's satirical intent.

Serious question though: this is an international forum, accessible to anyone. It doesn't have requirements that people have a particular training in music or theory or composition or, more pointedly, acculturation into the norms to which LoPresti is implicitly appealing. How should one respond when a post is put up that reveals what might seem like lamentable gaps in musical, theoretical, and compositional background? LoPresti seems to like satire. I prefer taking posters seriously, and nudging them along towards knowledge that I think will be helpful.

Heh... got it! I'm silly enough and this is evidence of it.

I went the theoretical way, as much as subertsomething did...;)

. . . Spoil-sport . . .

Ed,

Your melody sounds suspiciously like a song about Mary and a lamb. Why do I feel this insistent tugging on my leg?

Hi, Steve,

Whenever in doubt, a good composer ALWAYS trusts his leg!

Ed

ROFL

No worries. I had to run and didn't have time to finish my reply, so the last reply was only half of it.

With pleasure, I tried LoPresti's work and looking forward to the rest of his finished product.

Sure I enjoy fun just as much as the next guy. Sure I did see the humor but couldn't get back to finishing my reply.

There is no doubt LoPresti's work is full of fun.

I do enjoy everything on this site both fun and serious work.

When I can't get back to finishing my reply, there is nothing much I can do about it.

Ah, and I hadn't got around to trying to sound out this 12-tone wonder. But I am glad to hear that it is actually a SONG, and not that pedestrian run-of-the-mill thing: a piece. (Although not so run-of-the-mill perhaps, since we so often hear of songs here on PW and so seldom of pieces.)

The non-traditional choice of sharps and flats clearly points to an inventive harmonization, necessitating such delights as A# and Cbb for reasons of correct harmonic spelling. I look forward to seeing the chords for this modernist flight of fancy. (I know, I know, modernism is so 20th century. What can I say, I'm a most conservative iconoclast.)

Hi LoPresti

This a fun composition, which I truly and fully support. Close to being a masterpiece, no doubt.

I did try it like you asked and almost loved it.

Good luck.

That Cbb is wonderfully bringing this piece together.

May I please make a suggestion?

Cbb__G#__F#__Ab__| Cbb__Cbb__Cbb___
G#__Ab__G#___. | Cbb__C#__Db

Feedbacks are welcome.

Clearly all the piece needs is a few G-triple-sharps and maybe a D-quadruple-flat or two.

I am thrilled that my little question has attracted such diversified responses, and especially from such an illustrious collection of musical talent!

I think my next step, for variety sake, will be to implement the RETROGRADE, but perhaps backwards. Please keep the encouragement coming . . .

Hi

You can implement the retrograde but not before transposing, only just after inverting it, which will bring it much needed retrograde-inversion.
Seeing that Cbb is bringing this piece to a climax, I would leave it in.
As Polyphonist said, add some triple sharps and quadruple flats for the sake of variety.

Personally, I hate writing 8va signs, so instead I put twelve sharp signs in front of each note (or 6 double sharp signs, depending on my mood).

Hi,

No doubt the true beauty of this piece is brought out by the number of sharps and flats applied.

However, I would try to stay within the size of the staff paper provided while applying the countless numbers of sharps and flats. Exceeding the staff paper size will only compromise the quality of the song not to mention the staff papers.

For advanced sight readers, put each note at the end of a line and then a long string of accidentals on the entire rest of that staff. The person will be forced to decipher the compound accidental, mentally "canceling out" each sharp-flat pair until they can determine the correct number of half steps up or down the note should be.

Thank you, Polyphonist,

I knew that SOMEwhere, SOMEhow, my new Cereal Technique would have SOME actual value.

Before this thread dies a quiet and most merciful death, I would like to return to PianoStudent88’s very insightful first post:

I confess that I did have a side agenda when first posting this, but was not expecting it to turn into the fun it has been. Since this has attracted a significant little brain-trust of musical thinkers, maybe it would not hurt to dig a little deeper, as in ---

So do I, PS88, and have attempted that nudging many, many times. Unfortunately, it seems to me, we on the Composers’ Forum, have recently gotten further away from “constructive nudging”, and are moving toward blind encouragement.

Typically, everyone recognizes great efforts, and all are quick to praise, and offer opinions on the parts they liked the best. This tells me that there is a fairly universal, abiding sense of what is a “good” composition. But where we (as the Composers’ Forum) fall short is when someone posts up something that isn’t very good, and has little chance of becoming anything. If we are going to offer advice, this is precisely where we need to “dig in”, and offer real, directed, specific “nudging”. This has happened many times in the past, with varying results. It seems to be happening less recently.

I believe it does no one any good to encourage a novice to “just keep at it” when s/he shows “lamentable gaps in musical, theoretical, and compositional background”. If we are going to advise, we need to help fill some of those gaps. “Just write lots every day” works for an experienced author, or a composer, and probably NOT for a novice. If something is good, we need to acknowledge that. If something isn’t, then we need to suggest what it needs to make it good.

KeyString - I hope you did not hurt yourself on the floor!
Ed

Ed,

Thank you for a breath of fresh air. You make an important point and are absolutely right that the path of least resistance is to just say something is nice and leave it at that. In general I do try to offer some constructive criticism and sometimes the assembled wisdom here disagrees with me. I don't worry about that. Farther in the past I know I've criticized the quality of some poster's melodies and suggested they take the time to make them more memorable. That garnered some negative response and my thinking is if you don't want honest feedback don't post your music in a public forum asking for criticism.

We fairly often get composers posting new agey styled music. If it's enjoyable I'll say so and if it doesn't tickle my fancy I'll say why. It's not an area of expertise for me because I can't write music that's strictly ear candy. I don't always feel it appropriate to offer criticism if the music is obviously well crafted but just doesn't suit my tastes. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade if I feel it's obvious they have skills.

And, in turn, I thank you, Steve, for the assurance that I am not the only one who has noticed this recent trend.

As you imply, it is frequently a tight-rope walk to keep potential composers interested in our suggestions, while not "turning them off" to constructive critique. Perhaps a necessary risk?

This isn't the first time I've noticed sarcasm from the originator of this thread that doesn't contribute to anyone's understanding and consequently is of no use really.

Well... I do see what you mean, but some of us "know" Ed a bit better, so we don't really mind... It's his way of saying things... Plus I got caught up in being silly myself, so...

This thread was actually helpful in recognizing that there are humerous composers working on humerous songs. I remember listening to music played on trash cans in the past. Some might have thought that was "of no use" but I thought that was rather cool.

There are serious composers on this site, but I like to keep an open mind about the humerous composers as well.

I think I might be missing the genuine value of YOUR POST on this thread. Would you care to elaborate?

By the way, a warm welcome to The Forums!
Ed

How do you put those funny little smiley faces on your post?

Since you quoted me you could just see them in text mode. ; ) or : ) or : grin : or : ( (without the spaces)...

Such a helpful thread, huh?

This old guy learned a new trick! Can we kill this thread now?

Sure.

The originator presented us with an endless opportunity to state our views about the 12 tone Serialism, Dodecaphonic.
Some replies were knowledge based, some were fun replies, and some were very creative. This shows that this thread was creative enough to allowed all possible answers.

In all fairness, when the originator, Ed, asks why a false claim is made about him, the one making the claim should reply, boat.

I was talking about the very fact that you found out how to use the smileys!

Nikolas, I didn't find out about how to use the smiley face even with your teachings. I am a good learner so it has to be your teaching that I am still without a smiley face.

If you put this sign : and this sign ) together you'll get the smiley.

If you quote this post and check the lines bellow you'll see how they are made:






Just put this in your posts and you're done!

How did you make the smiley with teeth showing?

: grin : (without the spaces). Check the quote above...

I need some practice.