# Music Criticism & Its Discontents



## Deleted member 422019

When I posted a few of my symphonic movements on the forum (primarily one of them got all the attention) I really wasn't prepared for the negative criticism I received, and I overreacted.

What I should have done was wait a few days, meditate on the criticism and then offer my reply. Though I am quite sure the people who criticized my "sound" had the best of motives, I am reminded of the old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". If somebody offers what they believe to be constructive and helpful criticism, but the person receiving it does not believe the criticism is helpful or constructive, is it?

I like my sound, I work very hard to get the sound I want and, for the most part, I achieve it. If I spend two years writing and producing a symphonic work for the virtual orchestra, working on it 3-5 hours a day, you can bet that I spend a lot of time making the piece and recording work the way I want it to work. If somebody, or even a group of somebodies, says to me that they don't like my sound, but I do, I am not going to recall the album and re-produce a 40 minute work that took me years to create. Better to accept that my work won’t be understood or appreciated by some than not be true to my own artistic imagination!

In my decades of pursuing music composition and production, I have come to the belief that for criticism to be useful, it must be very specific, done in a spirit of sympathy for the composer, and be given by people who actually have the skills, knowledge and talent to give constructive criticism. I have received positive and helpful criticism many times, mostly I’ve paid for it by hiring teachers, mastering engineers or others in related fields who have built a reputation for excellence. Perhaps with music criticism, it’s like other products or services, you get what you pay for. My experience is that the most prolific and accomplished composers don't spend their time criticizing the works of others, unless they are in a teaching role and are asked to be critical. On online forums people just assume that role.

We’re all aware of how extremely competitive the music business is, and how rare decent or high-paying jobs composing and producing music for TV, film or games are. There are probably 500 composers applying for every paying job. Though I am composing, producing and teaching, I am not in the soundtrack business anymore. When I was scoring the Gumby TV series, I called a music agent in Los Angeles to line up new work when that project came to an end. After identifying myself to the secretary in the office of the agent who answered the phone, he began screaming at me about how his friend was supposed to get the job that I got and proceeded to denigrate both me and my boss, the creator of the show. This illustrates the intense competitive envy that fuels so many people's ambition and made me wise to the fact that some people are not happy about the success of others.

Nevertheless, I take full responsibility for my own character imperfections and admit the times I handle criticism well is when I trust the person giving it and the criticism is specific rather than general. This wasn’t one of those times and I regret it. Tastes, style, aesthetics and listening skills vary from person to person, listening to music is a highly subjective experience.

Another issue that I think relates to this topic is that quite a few people view MIDI primarily as a "mockup", and do not relate entirely to the idea that MIDI and the virtual orchestra are a genuine musical medium, not merely a mockup for another medium. An analogy I often use involves photograph or film. Photography is not considered a mockup for painting, it is a unique art -although when photography first hit the scene in the 19th century, many people dismissed it as a “mechanical contrivance”, similarly as to how people dismiss MIDI. Same with film, we don't think of a film as a mockup for live plays, we view film, well, as film. I personally think the term mockup is a bit derisive, it implies something that is inauthentic, unfinished, a representation for something else. I realize that mockups are quite practical when trying to show a director or producer what an orchestral score for a film, game or TV show might sound like but this in no way implies that the medium itself cannot be used for serious artistic expression or as an end in itself.

I remember the first time I heard The Rite of Spring by Stravinsky, the music made me anxious and I thought it sounded really terrible and weird. By the third listen or so, I began to really appreciate the beauty and innovation contained in the work. I gave it a chance by listening to it many times. I wasn’t going to allow my initial bias to interfere with appreciating the music, so I stayed with the piece. Of course, if I had listened to it ten times and still didn’t enjoy it, I’d stop listening. And Stravinsky would go right on being Stravinsky.

In conclusion, I made the error of becoming emotional and too-quick-to-react over criticism of my work, I'm glad I had this experience because I can learn from it. I still maintain that the most useful criticism is when the person receiving it considers it useful, not the person giving it. The times I've received constructive, insightful criticism I remember feeling sincere gratitude. The kind of criticism that helps me is always specific, like "have you thought about removing that piccolo at m186 as I think it isn't contributing to the textural change you have going on in the strings and brass"? Now I can hone it on something and decide if I think my critic is right, because if he is, I win. If not, I still win. That's constructive criticism.

Jerry

www.jerrygerber.com


----------



## markleake

TL;DR: I don't entirely agree. I think you are not giving much credit to your audience.

---

Not sure if you've posted this in the right part of the forum, but I'll respond here anyway. Sorry for the long post...

While I don't disagree with some of your thoughts above, I will disagree on one key point that you've made a few times now: the idea that feedback is more important from those who are experienced and able to point out specific issues or improvements.

Of course that kind of experienced feedback is always very valuable - who here is going to argue with that? But even so, the audience for your work is probably *more* important. There's exceptions, but most music is not written for the people who are as musically experienced as the author. Musicians generally write for the "user-enjoyment" factor - our audience is therefore uniquely placed to make that judgement, regardless of their background.

Also, just an obvious comment here.... submitting anything to a forum for feedback, especially this one, is usually going to result in people providing feedback. Generally it is courteous, sometimes it is fairly direct, but almost always it is said with the best of intentions. The feedback can sometimes be a mixed bag even with the better pieces that are posted.

Personally, I really dislike it when people don't tell me what they are really thinking. If it sucks, just tell me. But let me know the "why" it sucks part also. In my short time here (maybe 6 months?), I have always tried to be direct but courteous with the feedback I give personally - most everyone else does also.

I'm not posting to be argumentative... just providing an alternative view. I'm *not* a professional musician or music creator and have a lot to learn, so maybe that gives me a different perspective.

On your Symphony #8 second movement track which caused the fuss. I did provide some very cautious feedback on this already. I held back somewhat due to your previous reaction though (and I assume others will also). My feedback is just as a listener. In general I liked it - it displays talent that is a fair bit beyond my own. I struggled when listening to some parts, because the instruments didn't sound like what I'm used to hearing, to the point where I still can't identify what some instruments are supposed to be (*if* they are supposed to be something in the real world?). I also was not a fan of some mixing choices (instrument volumes, positioning, etc).

I was surprised at first when your reaction to feedback was that this is exactly how you wanted it to sound, and that the feedback reacting to these points was suspect and invalid. Usually posters on the forum are trying to enhance the instrumentation to be more like the physical instrument sound that most of us are trying to emulate (apart from the electronic sounds obviously). Regardless of whether you call them a "mock-up" or not, most people will be trying to tweak their sound to be more real, and so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect reviewers to try and help in this aspect.


----------



## Sebastianmu

jsg said:


> if I think my critic is right, because if he is, I win. If not, I still win. That's constructive criticism.


It all comes down to this, Jerry: While you are obviously quite a good composer, your production-skills are not on the level that many other members of this forum have reached (I'm not sure if you are aware of the caliber of some of the people that visit this place regularly). This has nothing to do with conceiving MIDI and virtual instruments as an art form in their own right, but with using the technical tools that are available today in the best possible way. And the Stravinsky example is misleading, because anyone who created something that is lacking on one level or another, could easily retreat to it and presume, he is a not-yet-understood genius, while in fact he is just not very good at what he is doing. Wiping away criticism with a sponge labeled 'not helpful for me', or 'not from competent opponent', or 'not specific enough', is just a way of not having to deal with the criticism, and - in the end - with the fact that one might not be as awesome (yet) as one's self image suggested. I think an attitude that acknowledges the possibility that the criticism might be just, without _any_ regard to who uttered it, is something we owe the people that took a considerable amount of their precious lifetime to listen to our piece and made the effort to articulate their opinions. (They could have done something far better in these five or ten or twenty minutes, like kissed their fiancée for instance!)


----------



## Ashermusic

Jerry, here is what I concluded a ong time ago:

Guys like you and me, in our '60's, have been at this a long time. If we are honest with ourselves, we know what our compositional and sample library manipulation skills are and are not, and what a bunch of guys on a forum say about them should really not matter. If we are working on paid projects, the only opinion other than our own that should matter is our client's.

I only post things here at someone's request or to demonstrate a technique. What amazes me is that sometimes something I worked hard on gets knocked and something I dashed out in 45 minutes gets praised. Also, I have seen lavish praise bestowed on stuff I thought was awful, just awful, and I simply attribute that to the fact that they listen to so much crappy bombastic music, that is what they like.

If I DID decide I actually wanted feedback, therefore, it would only be from people who I think do it better than me, like Mike Verta, or Andy Blaney, or those with genre specific insights I lack, because I only value the opinion of people who can walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

So anyway, that is how it works here and you should not, if you continue to post or link to pieces, expect otherwise.


----------



## Rodney Money

Interesting, because the best critique I have ever recieved came from children.


----------



## JohnG

It's the internet. Get used to it.

Critic: "I'd like to offer my opinion of your music."

Composer: "What is your opinion?"

Critic: "It's worthless."

Composer: "I know, but give it to me anyway."


----------



## Deleted member 422019

markleake said:


> TL;DR: I don't entirely agree. I think you are not giving much credit to your audience.
> In general I liked it - it displays talent that is a fair bit beyond my own. I struggled when listening to some parts, because the instruments didn't sound like what I'm used to hearing, to the point where I still can't identify what some instruments are supposed to be (*if* they are supposed to be something in the real world?). I also was not a fan of some mixing choices (instrument volumes, positioning, etc).
> 
> I was surprised at first when your reaction to feedback was that this is exactly how you wanted it to sound,aspect.



You may think I am dismissing my audience, but actually I strive to be generous to my audience and write music that will uplift and entertain them and give them a few minutes of pleasure. The people who accept and like my work are moved by it. (www.jerrygerber.com/press.htm) But truthfully, the people's whose opinion usually matters to me are those who pay me, and nobody pays me to write symphonies for the virtual orchestra. I decided 25 years ago to stop doing soundtracks and focus on symphonic composition, I knew I was bringing together two disparate worlds, classical composition and virtual instruments. Nothing I do is perfect and nothing anybody does is perfect. I've never claimed to have the best production technique in the world, I hear some stuff that really impresses me as far as the virtual orchestra is concerned, but not so much when it comes to composition, how the ideas are developed (they usually are not) and how original the ideas sound to my ear). Film music is not my ideal. I don't study film music, I study classical music. I don't write short-form cues any more (I've written about 750 of them) I write more experimental, risky music that doesn't necessarily conform to the way soundtrack composers hear music. Perfectly polished music that has no edge, no sense of aesthetic risk, doesn't appeal to me. There will always be people who do things better than me and not as well as me, that's a given. But nobody can write my music better than I can, and that's true for every composer.

On my desk are three orchestral recordings, one of Bach's Brandenburg concertos, another of Mahler's 6th symphony and Samuel Barber's piano concerto. All three recordings sound very different from one another, all three orchestras sound different from one another. I listen to a lot of orchestral music, not only do the orchestras sound different from one another, but _the style of music greatly impacts the sound as well_. And the hall. And the recording and microphone techniques. So to think there is simply one single orchestral ideal doesn't make sense to me. I experiment with panning in ways that are not in line with the idea that one should place their virtual instruments similarly to how orchestral players are situated. 

I recommend to people is to follow their own artistic vision, be prepared to succeed and fail, but the most important thing is to strive to find your own voice; sincerity and authenticity are as important as craft and technique. I also recommend not spending time critiquing the works of others unless you're a teacher and that's your job, because that's time you could be spending improving your own work.

Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Sebastianmu said:


> It all comes down to this, Jerry: While you are obviously quite a good composer, your production-skills are not on the level that many other members of this forum have reached (I'm not sure if you are aware of the caliber of some of the people that visit this place regularly). This has nothing to do with conceiving MIDI and virtual instruments as an art form in their own right, but with using the technical tools that are available today in the best possible way. And the Stravinsky example is misleading, because anyone who created something that is lacking on one level or another, could easily retreat to it and presume, he is a not-yet-understood genius, while in fact he is just not very good at what he is doing. Wiping away criticism with a sponge labeled 'not helpful for me', or 'not from competent opponent', or 'not specific enough', is just a way of not having to deal with the criticism, and - in the end - with the fact that one might not be as awesome (yet) as one's self image suggested. I think an attitude that acknowledges the possibility that the criticism might be just, without _any_ regard to who uttered it, is something we owe the people that took a considerable amount of their precious lifetime to listen to our piece and made the effort to articulate their opinions. (They could have done something far better in these five or ten or twenty minutes, like kissed their fiancée for instance!)



You have no idea what "it all comes down to". What's your motive? Do you get some kind of sick pleasure knocking down the good work of others? Can you compose and produce a good symphony? Are you just a fanboy, comparing my work to people you admire, as though identifying with their work somehow makes your opinion valid?

Lots of people who work in the music field don't agree with your view of my production quality and my sound: www.jerrygerber.com/press.htm. Your willingness to take cheap shots at me makes you look small.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Ashermusic said:


> Jerry, here is what I concluded a ong time ago:
> 
> Guys like you and me, in our '60's, have been at this a long time. If we are honest with ourselves, we know what our compositional and sample library manipulation skills are and are not, and what a bunch of guys on a forum say about them should really not matter. If we are working on paid projects, the only opinion other than our own that should matter is our client's.
> 
> I only post things here at someone's request or to demonstrate a technique. What amazes me is that sometimes something I worked hard on gets knocked and something I dashed out in 45 minutes gets praised. Also, I have seen lavish praise bestowed on stuff I thought was awful, just awful, and I simply attribute that to the fact that they listen to so much crappy bombastic music, that is what they like.
> 
> If I DID decide I actually wanted feedback, therefore, it would only be from people who I think do it better than me, like Mike Verta, or Andy Blaney, or those with genre specific insights I lack, because I only value the opinion of people who can walk the walk and not just talk the talk.
> 
> So anyway, that is how it works here and you should not, if you continue to post or link to pieces, expect otherwise.



Very true, if someone can do what I do better than me, I_ learn from listening to their music_ and, if possible, analyzing their scores. That's how I learn, other than by doing. The "critics" have nothing to teach. The masters, the experts --it's their work I can learn from, not from some guy on the internet who cannot do what I can, yet erroneously believes their critique has value.

When I was doing soundtracks, the only opinion that mattered, like you say Jay, are those of the people paying me. But my symphonies are a labor of love, nobody pays me to write them, I pay myself! ;>)


----------



## Arbee

I tend to look for the seed of truth in almost every criticism (it's usually there somewhere), even from the most uneducated and unrespected sources. This doesn't mean I take everything to heart and change because of it, but I find great value in at least trying to understand the perspective of the critic. It keeps me evolving.

In forums like this I find some come to share, some come to learn, some come for validation, some come to sell and/or manage social media marketing, some come to look for students, and some come to assume a sense of authority as would-be leaders of the brains trust. I'm fairly chill and appreciative of the range of people here, as long as we all know why we're here.


----------



## nordicguy

Arbee said:


> ...
> In forums like this I find some come to share, some come to learn, some come for validation, some come to look for students, and some come to assume a sense of authority as would-be leaders of the brains trust. I'm fairly chill and appreciative of the range of people here, as long as we all know why we're here.


Pretty neat comment!
I'v had precious comments from non/unexperimented musicians.
It could be totally nonsense or something that really worth some thinking about.
We do what we want with it anyway.
Going out of ourself artistically is a real challenge.
That said, v'got total respect for people who expose them self posting them precious work here or anywhere else.


----------



## David Stiles

All this talk about MIDI realism (or lack thereof) makes me wonder if something similar to the "Uncanny Valley" operates in music the way that it operates in visual representations of human beings.

For those of you who might not be familiar with the concept, there are studies that have shown that people respond more and more favorably to objects as they become more anthropomorphized (i.e. more human in their appearance). However, that favorable response actually turns to horror and distaste once the representation becomes only slightly different from an actual human face. Apparently, back in the late 1980s, Pixar ran into some trouble with this during some of their early experiments with computer animation. 

If you're interested in reading more about the concept, check this out.

Anyhow, I wonder if there is a certain portion of the population that will respond well to either a real orchestra or an obviously synthetic one, but might find it hard to deal with a track that sometimes sounds like a real orchestra but occasionally has sounds that veer just slightly away from "realism." Thoughts, anyone?


----------



## Deleted member 422019

David Stiles said:


> All this talk about MIDI realism (or lack thereof) makes me wonder if something similar to the "Uncanny Valley" operates in music the way that it operates in visual representations of human beings.
> 
> For those of you who might not be familiar with the concept, there are studies that have shown that people respond more and more favorably to objects as they become more anthropomorphized (i.e. more human in their appearance). However, that favorable response actually turns to horror and distaste once the representation becomes only slightly different from an actual human face. Apparently, back in the late 1980s, Pixar ran into some trouble with this during some of their early experiments with computer animation.
> 
> If you're interested in reading more about the concept, check this out.
> 
> Anyhow, I wonder if there is a certain portion of the population that will respond well to either a real orchestra or an obviously synthetic one, but might find it hard to deal with a track that sometimes sounds like a real orchestra but occasionally has sounds that veer just slightly away from "realism." Thoughts, anyone?




You may be on to something David. In Japan, robotic researchers and developers have found that when they make robots with uncannily human-like faces, people get very uncomfortable interacting with them, as though the line separating robot and human has become too close for comfort. Yet when they deliberately make the face of the robot look obviously not human, but still warm, cute or friendly, people form an attachment to the robot and accept interacting with it.

I don't know how this plays out with the virtual orchestra. There is simply no accounting for taste and perception. Education, genetics, subjectivity, aesthetics and experience all color our perceptions and our tastes for everything, from ideas, to food, to who we connect well with and who we don't. And then there are two quotes by Upton Sinclair:

"*It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!*"

*All art is propaganda. It is universally and inescapably propaganda; sometimes unconsciously, but often deliberately, propaganda.*


----------



## Zhao Shen

JohnG said:


> It's the internet. Get used to it.
> 
> Critic: "I'd like to offer my opinion of your music."
> 
> Composer: "What is your opinion?"
> 
> Critic: "It's worthless."
> 
> Composer: "I know, but give it to me anyway."



Golden


----------



## Replicant

Taking heed of music criticism can be beneficial, but paying too much attention to it can be _very_ bad. I developed bad habits for years because I spent too much time making music _for musicians_ and assuming that because they were better than I was that their advice must therefore be good; few who are good at something are actually good teachers. On the flipside, you don't want to get caught in an echo chamber of people telling you that you're awesome. 

In my opinion, the best way to improve is to be as honest as you possibly can with yourself. You really need to sit back and say "Does this sound just as good, if not better than professional work of the same style?" if the answer is no, don't be that "it's subjective" guy, because it's not. Find out why. Read books, take lessons, watch tutorials and listen with an ultra critical ear. 

Do this, and your music will eventually sound just as good or better than what you're going for because you won't have people feeding you either misinformation, or telling you to do things _their_ way (which may not be a good way). If it's not sounding "right", there is a reason why; your concern should be finding it. 

If you can't be honest with yourself, the honesty of others is unlikely to make you change your mind.


----------



## Hannes_F

Speaking privately, not as a moderator.

Jerry,
welcome to this forum

I believe there are few places in the internet where you can find this collective amount of expertise regarding music production with samples. Well, in case you can tap it because many readers here won't comment knowing the inevitable outcome before. True, it can be a tough crowd, but the comments in the other thread were actually on the harmless side. Sometimes it is necessary for all of us to re-adjust, and that is part of the art.

It happens to the best of us: We listen to our own work so much and repeatedly that we lose objectivity and can not process what we hear with "fresh ears" any more. Unconsciously we we know that and seek opinion of others. They may not praise but it is a healthy process.

Best regards, Hannes


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Hannes_F said:


> Speaking privately, not as a moderator.
> 
> Jerry,
> welcome to this forum.
> I believe there are few places in the internet where you can find this collective amount of expertise regarding music production with samples. Well, in case you can tap it because many readers here won't comment knowing the inevitable outcome before. True, it can be a tough crowd, but the comments in the other thread were actually on the harmless side. Sometimes it is necessary for all of us to re-adjust, and that is part of the art.
> Best regards, Hannes



Thank you Hannes.


----------



## Grim_Universe

@jsg
First of all, sorry for my bad english. It's not my native, but this theme is pretty interesting and i think i have something to say. I read some info on your webpage, Jerry, and i think i can understand you now. In your small world (in which we all live at the most time) you are professional MIDI music orchestrator, virtuoso performer, etc. But in reality you are totally not. I can say that your production skills are actually on a pretty low level, and all your defensive positions such as "that's my vision" are pretty funny. If you want people to judge your work as a professional work, present yourself not as professional MIDI orchestrator, but as a composer, who have some thoughts to share with other people. But if you make your symphony sound like a totally urealistic thing with absolutely unrealistic panning, instruments volumes and dynamics, well, get used to kind of feedbacks you have now.
In all times music was not only about writing\composing, but about PERFORMING as well. So you think your "vision" can compete with a real thing? I don't think so. We all try to make our music as close to real as possible. That's what we do, because even brilliant idea has to be performed good.
You made a very good choice, when you came with your music here. Professional growth is a competition with others and yourself especially. When you think in categories like "they are too f*cking stupid to understand my vision", you just make worse to yourself, not anybody else. So it's better for you to stop protecting yourself and start thinking what instruments you have to change in your templates, what reverb you will use and so on. Ofcourse, you can go a completely other way and perform your music with a real orchestra. Your music is not presentable right now and you have something to do with it, because you won't get any response from people and employers especially.
Sorry for my harsh words and remember, that i talking not about your composing skills, but your MIDI performer skills.


----------



## markleake

jsg said:


> I also recommend not spending time critiquing the works of others unless you're a teacher and that's your job, because that's time you could be spending improving your own work.


Now that's a truely silly statement. We all learn though discourse, critical thinking, sharing our thoughts, etc. This statement also sounds elitist.
It's up to you mate. If you would prefer to argue instead of trying to get better at producing your music, then that is your choice.


----------



## chillbot

^^^ I wish I could "like" this post twenty more times.


----------



## JohnG

I didn't know Trump was on this thread!


----------



## Deleted member 422019

re-peat said:


> I usually warm to people who are spectacularly convinced of their own worth, or people all set to row against the stream, and whose interests in music avoid the formulaic instant gratification of lazy clichés, but despite that being the image I initially derived from reading the words you write, you are — I have to say — a rather difficult person to warm to, Mr. Gerber.
> 
> My biggest problem is this: the quality of your music unfortunately nowhere reflects the rhetoric you use to fight off its critics with. Having read your many posts before having heard any of your music, I pressed the play button with quite some anticipation, expecting to hear something truly individual and "out of the ordinary", delivered with a singular amount of attention to quality and detail, but what I ended up listening to, were very poor-sounding and technically weak renditions of music which, excuse me, I never found all that remarkable or interesting in itself either. In fact, most of the time, the two pieces which I’ve listened to — "Small Matters" and the 2nd Movement of your 8th symphony — are as conventional, “déjà entendu” and risk-free as the music which you’re so eager to distance yourself from. Sure, the Gerber idiom is perhaps a trifle more complex and high-brow than that of the average ‘epic’ track or film cue, but conformist banality wrapped in pseudo-sophistication remains conformist banality. Worse even: it becomes pretentious conformist banality.
> 
> What you say about people too often being unable to accept MIDI-productions as artistically valid creations in their own right is something I fully agree with, but in this case that is completely irrelevant to the discussion because every single aspect of your MIDI-production references — in its choice of sounds, its style of composition and orchestration, and its suggestion of performance — traditional music performed by a traditional real orchestra (or any number of players), and you can’t expect your listeners to ignore that. You clearly couldn't break out of that frame of reference when writing, performing and producing the music, so why should we?
> Doing something with samples and DAW’s that deserves to be judged on its own merits and musical authenticity (rather than be admired for the effectiveness with which it emulates an entirely different type of music practice) requires imagination, bold creativity, vision and courage, none of which — I am sorry to say — is present in either of those two pieces; pieces the concept and audible incarnation of which exists entirely within the conventional confines of what is commonly understood as "a mock-up". So, don’t be offended by people listening to your music the way they listen to mock-ups, and pointing out short-comings and weaknesses the way most mock-ups — yours certainly not being an exception — invite us to.
> 
> And I don’t go along with the “I’m only interested in the opinion of critics I deem capable and approve of” either, I have to add. If you post your music here, we’re your audience. Not your admirers back home, not your family or friends, not your hand-picked selection of trusted critics, no .. we are. And if you can’t deal with this audience and don't respect it beyond allowing it to applaud you, then don’t post your music. Or post better music. Of a quality to shut us up with. But in the absence of that: there’s something gigantically blasé and arrogant in expecting us to listen, but then denying us the right and/or qualification to formulate an opinion about what we’ve listened to.
> 
> And things aren't helped of course when you keep insisting on presenting yourself as a 'Master of Sequencing' or an expert on "The Art Of Midi Orchestration". It's sad and ridiculous enough already that both claims have to be forwarded by yourself to begin with, but it becomes downright painful and embarrassing when the material which you post contains not even the vaguest hint of evidence that either of those deluded presumptions might be worth to be taken seriously.
> 
> _




Please direct me to some of your tracks so I may here what the master genius is offering us...


----------



## Rodney Money

jsg said:


> Please direct me to some of your tracks so I may here what the master genius is offering us...


----------



## emid

Grim_Universe said:


> @jsg
> First of all, sorry for my bad english. It's not my native, but this theme is pretty interesting and i think i have something to say. I read some info on your webpage, Jerry, and i think i can understand you now.



May the 'Wrath of Titans' be on you, cursed!


----------



## Grim_Universe

@jsg
Don't be mad. I know that i'm bad and i won't ever say that i'm some kind of a genius. You chose completely wrong strategy to conversate with people. We are here to grow up, not to be offended or to offend other people.
I think it will be better for you to stop being so selfish and stupid at the same time.


----------



## JohnG

I see you removed your nasty attack on Grim, jsg. Good idea. You are getting good advice, even if you are not interested in hearing it.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

JohnG said:


> I see you removed your nasty attack on Grim, jsg. Good idea. You are getting good advice, even if you are not interested in hearing it.



And what good advice have I gotten?


----------



## dcoscina

Some nasty stuff flying around here.... I think it's understood that if you solicit people for opinions you must be prepared to receive both good and critical reviews. If you truly believe in your stuff, the critical charges won't affect you so personally. But then you won't likely grow because you will be closed off to other avenues and options. 

The older I get, the more I'm less satisfied with my stuff- I listen back and think of a few other ways I could have written the piece. At times, I take the opportunity to revise existing pieces since my compositional sensibilities have changed over the years. 

Coming from semi pro to working full time as a composer, I have let go of the notion that any of my music is beyond critique or is in a finished state. I've done tons of re writes at times and others I've nailed it the first time. The last job I had I wrote 20 songs for a national ad and none of them passed muster with the client who was a former rock singer (ugh....). I still got paid but it was a shame nonetheless. but that is the gig. Whenever you put something out into the world it will be met with varying perspectives because we aren't a hive species. 

I always look at the example John Williams sets- he's humble and quiet about his own music. It seems as though he's genuinely not that impressed with his own stuff and always says he's striving to do better. If this guy has that mentality, heck, so should we all.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

I apologize to the group for being so prickly about criticism. I, like everyone else, has a lot to learn about both composition and production, I know that, I know it even more so now that I am in my 60s. The thing that frustrates me about the criticism I have been getting is that it is so general and so discouraging in tone. If someone could actually say how to improve a passage, I can hear that, I can accept that. For example, I know in many of my passages the brass do not sound as good as I know they could, in other passages they do. The french horn harmonies bother me the most. Not the notes, not the harmonies, but the sound of the ensemble. One critic said my work is lacking in dynamics, but I just don't hear that, my works have much dynamic range, changes of articulation, attack/release changes. I don't really expect anybody here to give a rat's ass about my music or my evolution as a musician, but at least be specific, generalized criticism just doesn't help at all, not because I'm arrogant or that I think my work is beyond reproach, but that it is too general to be useful. 

I know many of you are struggling to make a living as composers, I know how hard that is. Only a few people can make a really great living that way, and there is much pressure and downsides to that, I know that too. Much of that difficulty of sustaining a life-long career in music does, I believe, contribute to the urge to be critical of the work of others. After all, we are competitive creatures, each of us striving for some recognition and acceptance of our talents.

Once again, I am truly sorry if I have offended or hurt anyone's feelings, I strive not to do that in my personal life and I will try not to do that online. I wish all of you much success, happiness, and creative growth.

Sincerely,
Jerry


----------



## Rodney Money

jsg said:


> The french horn harmonies bother me the most. Not the notes, not the harmonies, but the sound of the ensemble.


Well, my friend, let's chat about the horns for a little bit. Are you trying to do 4 part harmony with the same horn patch, different separate solo horn patches, or ensemble horn patches? As Orchestral Tools has demonstrated in their demo video of Berlin Brass, using 4 different solo horns simply work so much better than say a solo patch played in harmony, even if detuned, or an ensemble horn patch that can sound too thick played as chords.


----------



## Baron Greuner

Jerry you never want to worry about what other people think. The amont of crap talked and written about music is astronomical.
But I think there's a lot of truth in over analysing one's own efforts maybe needlessly quite a lot of the time.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Rodney Money said:


> Well, my friend, let's chat about the horns for a little bit. Are you trying to do 4 part harmony with the same horn patch, different separate solo horn patches, or ensemble horn patches? As Orchestral Tools has demonstrated in their demo video of Berlin Brass, using 4 different solo horns simply work so much better than say a solo patch played in harmony, even if detuned, or an ensemble horn patch that can sound too thick played as chords.



When I do four-part harmony, I usually use 2 individual (solo) horns, each playing 2 parts. At times, they have round, full, brassy sound that I like, at other times, usually at higher velocities, they get too "squished", and lose some resonance. One solution is to use VSL's ensemble brass, it sounds better, but then, if it really matters which it probably doesn't, I am using 16 brass (4x4). Any suggestions, other than get a new library (I am completely 100% sold on the VSL Orchestral Cube and will use it for the remainder of my life.


----------



## Sebastianmu

Apology accepted. The horns (maybe the brass in general) were one of the _less ideal_ things that struck me immediately when listening to the first movement of your 8th symphony. If you're interested in achieving a more natural horn sound, I'd like to draw your attention to Sample Modeling Brass, played with a breath controller. The achievable results are stunning:



[EDIT: I'm sorry, your post about your commitment to VSL came while I was writing.]


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Baron Greuner said:


> Jerry you never want to worry about what other people think. The amont of crap talked and written about music is astronomical.
> But I think there's a lot of truth in over analysing one's own efforts maybe needlessly quite a lot of the time.



My mistake, as I see it, was to turn the focus away from the comments about the music, and my personality became the focus instead. I made this error partly because I am seldom fully secure as to who I am, but also because as I've said before, generalized, non-specific criticism just isn't objectively helpful. Here's how the conversation should have gone:

"Your productions suck"
"Can you tell me what you don't like about it?"
"Yes, your brass at measure 32 do not sound realistic, they don't sound musically pleasing to my ear".
"Could you tell me how I can make it sound better, more realistic?"
"Yes, have you tried doing....." etc.

Here's the deal, if you're going to throw out criticism (listen up all you 20-something folks, you might learn something new!) be prepared to offer a solution, be prepared to tell the producer HOW you think the passage can be improved, offer techniques, strategies, offer solutions. If you cannot, or don't want to do that, than you're not giving responsible criticism. Just throwing out a critique with no intention of backing it up with techniques is immature and not helpful. We're supposed to be musicians helping musicians, not musicians discouraging musicians, right?

We're all striving to express ourselves, learn, grow and evolve. If criticism is designed, consciously or unconsciously to discourage the person you're criticizing because you fear competition, turn the criticism toward your own motives; If you can do this with compassion and self-respect, you'll evolve as a human being far more deeply than if you turn your criticism toward others...
We all have bullshit-detectors, most of us have the capacity to detect insincerity. But sometimes we fail to turn our bullshit-detector on ourselves, to see our own posturing and pretense for what it really is. 

Kindness, empathy and compassion are the only real path to genuine self-respect. Let's all try and practice this, and if we do, I am sure we can make this forum a better place.

Jerry


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Sebastianmu said:


> Apology accepted. The horns (maybe the brass in general) were one of the _less ideal_ things that struck me immediately when listening to the first movement of your 8th symphony. If you're interested in achieving a more natural horn sound, I'd like to draw your attention to Sample Modeling Brass, played with a breath controller. The achievable results are stunning:




Thank you for the suggestion, but at this point I'd like to focus on using the VSL Orchestral Cube. Any suggestions regarding using that library? The demo you shared sounds good, but I am not convinced I cannot get a convincing brass sound with VSL.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Sebastianmu said:


> Apology accepted. The horns (maybe the brass in general) were one of the _less ideal_ things that struck me immediately when listening to the first movement of your 8th symphony. If you're interested in achieving a more natural horn sound, I'd like to draw your attention to Sample Modeling Brass, played with a breath controller. The achievable results are stunning:
> 
> 
> 
> [EDIT: I'm sorry, your post about your commitment to VSL came while I was writing.]




Breath controllers have been around since the early 1980s. Yamaha created the first one for their DX7 synths. You're not under the impression that they are new, are you?


----------



## Sebastianmu

jsg said:


> Breath controllers have been around since the early 1980s. Yamaha created the first one for their DX7 synths. You're not under the impression that they are new, are you?


No, what I'm saying is: Sample Modeling Brass and a breath controller, like the relatively inexpensive one that is demonstrated in the video, are a perfect match! More important is the sample library, though. The breath controller is just a neat additional thingy that saves a lot of time and yields natural sounding results in a fairly quick and easy way.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Sebastianmu said:


> No, what I'm saying is: Sample Modeling Brass and a breath controller, like the relatively inexpensive one that is demonstrated in the video, are a perfect match! More important is the sample library, though. The breath controller is just a neat additional thingy that saves a lot of time and yields natural sounding results in a fairly quick and easy way.



Oh, OK. If I decide to get a new brass library I'll certainly check it out! Thanks!
Jerry


----------



## Deleted member 422019

re-peat said:


> And things aren't helped of course when you keep insisting on presenting yourself as a 'Master of Sequencing' or an expert on "The Art Of Midi Orchestration". It's sad and ridiculous enough already that both claims have to be forwarded by yourself to begin with, but it becomes downright painful and embarrassing when the material which you post contains not even the vaguest hint of evidence that either of those deluded presumptions might be worth to be taken seriously.
> 
> _




I never called myself a "master" of anything. That's what others have said. Your accusations are unfair and inaccurate.

You're about the meanest, nastiest person I've come across online in a long time. Perhaps this is why you hide your online identity. How can I respond but with pity?

Blessings,
Jerry


----------



## tack

20 or 30 years from now I suspect Piet will be dead from old age.


----------



## dcoscina

There is something I don't if anyone else thinks about which is whether they are hearing their work differently in their head compared to what it really sounds like. I often wonder about my own stuff. When I've worked on something or perhaps just a section in a piece that I'm proud of, yet it doesn't resound with others, I often wonder if I'm hearing the real orchestra version in my head and not the actual sample performance that everyone else is. 

Sometimes I wish people could separate the music from the production but it's very hard to do that when first impressions are always the most important. It's always a balancing act- good music quality but meshed with a great performance on samples. I don't write for samples the way I write for real orchestra. Sample libraries are great these days but if there is a phrase that doesn't work on any library I have, I re-write it so it will sound good. If I'm composing something that will be performed by a real group, then I usually stick with Notion or Sibelius and don't put much energy into the sampled version because thats not my ultimate goal for that piece.


----------



## d.healey

jsg said:


> at other times, usually at higher velocities, they get too "squished", and lose some resonance.


When you say velocities - do you mean you're using MIDI velocity to control dynamics?


----------



## Sebastianmu

jsg said:


> You're about the meanest, nastiest person I've come across online in a long time. Perhaps this is why you hide your online identity. How can I respond but with pity?


I find it astonishing how someone can be so demanding in regard to other people's conduct, and at the same time so absolutely careless about his own behaviour!


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Sebastianmu said:


> I find it astonishing how someone can be so demanding in regard to other people's conduct, and at the same time so absolutely careless about his own behaviour!



If I were so careless, I would not have bothered apologizing. The quote above is from a person who said I declared myself a "master of sequencing", when I never did. Others have said that, not me...I thought you'd be ready for a truce, but I see you're still pissed off.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

d.healey said:


> When you say velocities - do you mean you're using MIDI velocity to control dynamics?



Yes. I control dynamics with velocity, control 7 and 11, at the mixing board, and, after rendering to audio, using volume envelopes. But individual notes are controlled with velocity.


----------



## d.healey

jsg said:


> Yes. I control dynamics with velocity, control 7 and 11, at the mixing board, and, after rendering to audio, using volume envelopes. But individual notes are controlled with velocity.


Ok this is your biggest barrier to creating a realistic performance. I recommend you watch Mike Verta's virtuosity class. You need to be using samples that have dynamic dynamics - multiple dynamic level recordings that can be controlled using a continuous controller - because almost all musicians control their dynamics continuously. If your sample library doesn't have the scripting to allow such control then you will need to look at getting a new library - not because of the sound (a sample is a sample) but because of how you're able to control them.

This could be what your previous critic was referring to when they said your music lacked dynamics. Yes there are changes in volume but not dynamic which is more than just volume.


----------



## Sebastianmu

jsg said:


> Yes. I control dynamics with velocity, control 7 and 11, at the mixing board, and, after rendering to audio, using volume envelopes. But individual notes are controlled with velocity.


Maybe it is about time to deploy a technique called _velocity-crossfade_? Most people and libraries use CC1 for that, I think Vienna Instruments uses CC2 as a default (and you might have to activate it for each patch, I can't remember).


----------



## Hannes_F

Speaking privately, not as a moderator:

d.healey, what Jerry says is (at least that is how I understand it) that he uses cc 1 / 2 / 7 / 11 as everybody else here does and the actual sample choice is done by the note velocity (I guess he means with solo voices, while with tutti patches a standard crossfade usually is the better choice). This is a standard approach and it is described in both the article and the interview. I guess he does not use automated EQ (yet) which would be one step up from there.

The funny thing is that while the texts read very nice there are quite some passages where I don't hear much of the tweaking. Actually I am wondering why because the theory is solid so far.


----------



## Sebastianmu

jsg said:


> If I were so careless, I would not have bothered apologizing.


_One swallow does not a summer make, nor one fine day! _—Kermit the frog
I am not ' still pissed off', as you put it, I'm just ...amazed!


----------



## Baron Greuner

tack said:


> 20 or 30 years from now I suspect Piet will be dead from old age.


I hope not!

He's only 23 you know.

I sort of understand why people like to get their orchestral samples to sound like what is perceived to be real, but only sort of.


----------



## Karma

Thank you for the apology Jerry. I'd like to bring you up on something you've said quickly:



jsg said:


> Here's the deal, if you're going to throw out criticism (listen up all you 20-something folks, you might learn something new!) be prepared to offer a solution, be prepared to tell the producer HOW you think the passage can be improved, offer techniques, strategies, offer solutions. If you cannot, or don't want to do that, than you're not giving responsible criticism. Just throwing out a critique with no intention of backing it up with techniques is immature and not helpful. We're supposed to be musicians helping musicians, not musicians discouraging musicians, right?
> 
> We're all striving to express ourselves, learn, grow and evolve. If criticism is designed, consciously or unconsciously to discourage the person you're criticizing because you fear competition, turn the criticism toward your own motives; If you can do this with compassion and self-respect, you'll evolve as a human being far more deeply than if you turn your criticism toward others...
> We all have bullshit-detectors, most of us have the capacity to detect insincerity. But sometimes we fail to turn our bullshit-detector on ourselves, to see our own posturing and pretense for what it really is.



First of all, how about we stop using the word criticism and actually call it what it is. You are not and did not receive criticism in your previous thread, you were getting *feedback* from the community. They are both completely different things. 

In the previous thread I could see little issue with the feedback you were receiving, from what I can remember people were offering polite and helpful advice on what they believed you could do to improve - and you were dismissing them. Now I don't particularly want to bring this all up again, but they way you condescended and belittled others for their 'unworthy' feedback did and still does bother me. If we are as you quite rightly put it, musicians helping musicians, not musicians discouraging musicians. It makes me question your previous replies, which could quite easily be perceived as discouraging towards others, could it not? Just something to think about.


----------



## jononotbono

Baron Greuner said:


> I hope not!
> 
> He's only 23 you know.
> 
> I sort of understand why people like to get their orchestral samples to sound like what is perceived to be real, but only sort of.



How dare you make me spit my Tea out.


----------



## markleake

jsg said:


> I never called myself a "master" of anything. That's what others have said. Your accusations are unfair and inaccurate.
> 
> You're about the meanest, nastiest person I've come across online in a long time. Perhaps this is why you hide your online identity. How can I respond but with pity?
> 
> Blessings,
> Jerry



Jerry, to be fair to @re-peat, I think he is just voicing what many people here are thinking (look at the number of likes on his post!) and maybe he had looked at your own website that you've linked to several times.

If you look at the press quoted statements in particular on your website (http://www.jerrygerber.com/press.htm, viewed at 11th Oct 2016), it says things like:

"he is unquestionably a master of MIDI sequencing"
"Gerber makes extraordinarily skillful use of something called the 'Vienna Instruments Symphonic Cube,'"
"Jerry Gerber is so great at what he does that you're missing something amazing if you don't listen to this CD. He uses MIDI instruments to compose for orchestra, and he's such a master of a virtual musical world you're completely unaware it's electronic."
I quote these here because you have explicitly referred to your website a few times now, and these quotes are quite prominent on that site, along with other similar statements. Other parts of your site are not external press quoted sources, but your own statements that say things like:

"MIDI expert proficient with computer & audio technology, recording and CD mastering" (http://www.jerrygerber.com/credits.htm, viewed at 11th Oct 2016)
Edit: Forgot these quotes also:

"Decades of experience in music composition & production" (http://www.jerrygerber.com/credits.htm, viewed at 11th Oct 2016)

"He is a master of MIDI orchestration..." (bottom of page, http://www.jerrygerber.com/press.htm, viewed at 11th Oct 2016)


----------



## chillbot

Jerry you've been doing this exact same act for 20 years, almost verbatim. Posting music and then attacking anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with your brilliance. Getting old... don't you ever wonder if maybe everyone else on the planet ISN'T crazy...?


----------



## Ashermusic

Jerry, if you like the music you are creating and are not financially beholden to any of the people here, then take any comments you find helpful and implement them, and simply ignore the rest.

I had a guy here write me, and I paraphrase, "_Jay, you don't really know what you are talking about and I feel sorry for those who listen to your advice, because they just don't know any better."_

You know how long that bothered me? About .008 seconds. I know what I know and I also know what I don't know.

Rick Nelson:"Well, it's all right now. I learned my lesson well. You see, you can't please everyone so you've got to please yourself."


----------



## tack

Ashermusic said:


> I also know what I don't know


We should all be so lucky. But careful: that way hubris lies.


----------



## Ashermusic

tack said:


> We should all be so lucky. But careful: that way hubris lies.




No Tack, I don 't kid myself. There are a lot of people, some here, who know more than I do about many things. But as the State Farm commercial says, "I know a few things because I have seen a few things"


----------



## chillbot

Ashermusic said:


> No Tack, I don 't kid myself. There are a lot of people, some here, who know more than I do about many things. But as the State Farm commercial says, "I know a few things because I have seen a few things"



You must not golf. The worst thing you could possibly do is to *think* you know that you know what you do not know. It is the kiss of death.


----------



## Ashermusic

chillbot said:


> You must not golf. The worst thing you could possibly do is to *think* you know that you know what you do not know. It is the kiss of death.




I tried golfing with a friend once. I ket shanking the ball into the woods on the right, got a bad blister, and accidentally ran over my friend's pant leg with the golf cart.

Decided it was not for me


----------



## rdieters

Sebastianmu said:


> No, what I'm saying is: Sample Modeling Brass and a breath controller, like the relatively inexpensive one that is demonstrated in the video, are a perfect match! More important is the sample library, though. The breath controller is just a neat additional thingy that saves a lot of time and yields natural sounding results in a fairly quick and easy way.



I agree. This is an even better video, trombone starting at 5:15 is stunning


----------



## Baron Greuner

The hardest shot in golf is the next shot after a shank.

Jeez! Is this Jerry from the old days at VSL?

Mein Gott! How old are you now Jerry?


----------



## sinkd

Ashermusic said:


> I know what I know and I also know what I don't know.


----------



## patrick76

Ashermusic said:


> I tried golfing with a friend once. I ket shanking the ball into the woods on the right, got a bad blister, and accidentally ran over my friend's pant leg with the golf cart.
> 
> Decided it was not for me


It sounds like you may have been drinking when you tried golfing. If that is the case you were doing it correctly and there is nothing else to know.


----------



## Ashermusic

patrick76 said:


> It sounds like you may have been drinking when you tried golfing. If that is the case you were doing it correctly and there is nothing else to know.




I wish I had been. The truth is, take me way from the piano and I am a totally uncoordinated klutz.

And please sinkd, don't compare me to that vile man.


----------



## Smikes77

patrick76 said:


> It sounds like you may have been drinking when you tried golfing. If that is the case you were doing it correctly and there is nothing else to know.



I read this while on a tread mill and nearly fell off laughing.

I wasn`t drinking.


----------



## Ashermusic

Smikes77 said:


> I read this while on a tread mill and nearly fell off laughing.
> 
> I wasn`t drinking.



Sure, laugh at the afflicted.


----------



## Smikes77

I empathise, I`m the only one with the skill to tee off on the 1st, to end up on the green on the 9th and say "Job done, easy as pie, course in one!"


----------



## sinkd

Ashermusic said:


> And please sinkd, don't compare me to that vile man.


Absolutely no personal comparison was intended with that juxtaposition, but I see how you would have thought that. Apologies.

Just pointing out that "unknown unknowns" can sometimes lead to blindspots in our own self-assessment and "situational awareness." I rather agree with you that we should all strive to remain fully aware of our deficiencies and gaps in skill, kit and technique, etc. and to keep improving with practice and persistence; but also to recognize that we might occasionally need to absorb and accept feedback that we were not expecting.

Kind of like the people in the Febreeze commercials who are "noseblind" to their own smelly situation.  (Genius ad campaign. Selling a product to people who cannot themselves confirm that they need it!)

DS


----------



## Ashermusic

sinkd said:


> Absolutely no personal comparison was intended with that juxtaposition, but I see how you would have thought that. Apologies.
> 
> Just pointing out that "unknown unknowns" can sometimes lead to blindspots in our own self-assessment and "situational awareness." I rather agree with you that we should all strive to remain fully aware of our deficiencies and gaps in skill, kit and technique, etc. and to keep improving with practice and persistence; but also to recognize that we might occasionally need to absorb and accept feedback that we were not expecting.
> 
> Kind of like the people in the Febreeze commercials who are "noseblind" to their own smelly situation.  (Genius ad campaign. Selling a product to people who cannot themselves confirm that they need it!)
> 
> DS



Absolutely true. I am not so unself-aware as to believe that I am always self-aware 

But I really do work _hard_ to try not to kid myself. My wife will overhear a conversation where the person is singing my praises, "You are a genius" or "you are so talented" and she gets mad at me for tamping it down with qualifiers, like, "No, I am just a guy who has spent a ridiculous amount of time doing this stuff" and she says, "Why do you do that?"

And I say because it isn't true. I am far from a genius and there are people in the business who can piss away more talent that i will ever have. But for 50 years I have worked to get better and maximize what my abilities are, and that is all I can do and what I encourage others to do. And even geniuses need to work hard to grow.


----------



## Hannes_F




----------



## Morodiene

Ashermusic said:


> And I say because it isn't true. I am far from a genius and there are people in the business who can piss away more talent that i will ever have. But for 50 years I have worked to get better and maximize what my abilities are, and that is all I can do and what I encourage others to do. And even geniuses need to work hard to grow.



I've been following this thread with much interest because I see myself on both sides of the coin here. I totally sympathize with jpg and his reaction (although I did not read the original thread). I'm nobody special, but I do love music and composing and because of that love, it's hard to take criticism sometimes - especially if it is directed at something I thought I actually did well. 

And if it's just some guy I don't know on a forum who may or may not know as much as I do, then I may dismiss their comments/suggestions. Personally, I'll consider what everyone has to say, but may end up disregarding it if it goes against my instincts because in the end, it's my name on the score. That may be a hill I'll die on, but it's _my_ hill nonetheless. There's a big danger in writing for just one person that isn't yourself, IMO.

On the other hand, iron sharpens iron, and so to dismiss everyone that disagrees with me out of hand actually cheats me out of improving. Especially if several people are saying the same thing.

Since I do love what I do, I will keep doing it and keep learning how to be better regardless of the encouragement or discouragement of others. At least if there's improvement there's hope, and we can learn from even the unlikeliest of sources.


----------



## Ashermusic

Hannes_F said:


>



Sorry, not my intention. I will butt out now.


----------



## Baron Greuner

Ashermusic said:


> Sorry, not my intention. I will butt out now.



Surely not!?


----------



## markstyles

When I went to art school, (back in the dark ages) we learned the art of critiquing each others work.. You NEVER make it a personal attack..

First you point out something you like about it.. When you find something you don't like or you think is wrong, you make your point in a neutral way.. 'Perhaps you could have tried some this part in a lower harmony'. Or bring up a technical point, or, 'to achieve a cleaner sound, you could lower lower recording level, and a low pass shelve, so there was more sonic room, for your other tracks..

Everyone writes and enjoys music in a slightly different way.. I was on another site, and this woman made great music, but had no technical experience.. I mentioned miking techniques for her voice.. She responded positively, so I went into much more technical detail, on how to record a voice.. Two posts later, she was delivering these wonderful clear vocals..

I've uploaded material to the Logic Pro Help forum.. There is mostly EDM music, a la 'leggo' music.. Of course no one liked what I did.. I received no comments.. And music I would consider pure crap, (people with no obvious knowledge of theory, harmony, etc) were getting all kinds of compliments..

I upload to another site, where this one arrogant guy sometimes uploads two songs a day.. He is good, but I can't stand him as a person.. He never bothers to responds to others uploads, yet on a previous site, he thru a tantrum, because the rest of us 'jealous' posters wouldn't compliment his work. He removed all 50 of his posts and wrote a nasty 'F*(&K you and goodbye) post and was never seen there again.. Next day he showed up on another site I frequented. On the next site he joined, I decided to try another approach, I started writine positive reviews and went into a lengthy thorough critique of processes, the excellent harmonic, and rhythmic devices he used.. Then he started responding to me, and other posters with his comments.. 

So now the norm on that site is, if you don't respond to others uploads, no one will respond to yours.. It works.. And you get to know the qualities of different contributors. And you don't harp on the guy who doesn't always get the chords right to his song. (some people will point it out)

Some people just want to hear 'great job', and some sites are set up for that.. I go to another site, I don't bother pointing out the 'fluffed notes', stumbles, sloppy singing.. Because this site is more for hobbyists and enthusiasts.

If you post something, you have to be ready for the good, and bad responses you will get.. In the end they are opinions, everybody has one. Does their point make sense to you, can you try to understand where they are coming from?.. When I get a negative review.. (and I get my share).. Especially if I don't agree with them. I try to understand why they said what they said.. and i try to get it.. some of their points, I can now take into consideration, and improve my work..

I would assume that the majority of us work alone.. It's very easy to get swayed into one direction. A lot of us are control freaks at heart.. But it's easy for one person to 'go off' cause there is no one to ground them to reality again.

When I come across 'instigators' in a forum, I ignore their posts, if they get to be too much, or they are just plain 'attacking' someone, I complain to the moderator, if I feel they are disturbing the quality of a forum.. And on those times I got a response from the moderator that others had complained too, and those people were given a warning or just blocked from the site. And if a site just has too much 'Facebook, instagram' mentality (faceless insults).. I delete the site from my bookmarks.. 

People come here to learn, pick up points, get inspiration.. not get bombarded by negative energy. If I wanted that, I'd start my cable TV subscription again, and watch all the crap they broadcast.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Forums aren't for everybody. I learned that for me it's best I seldom post, which is what I've been doing for the last 3 or 4 years. Having said that, independent of some of my reactions, the comments I received whether I liked it or not made me improve the work I was posting, mainly my mix. It's hard to take sometimes, but once you've cooled down, it can be an opportunity to improve your piece. Doesn't mean that it is valid for every single criticism, some may very well be crap, but a lot of smart people on this forum. So to you to make the best of it.


----------



## Kas

For me, the greatest disappointment comes from lack of feedback and criticism. I was lurking for a year and a half here before I decided to join and the main reason for doing so was for posting my music and having it evaluated by people with different levels of proficiency. Since I'm a hobbyist with no formal musical education I was prepared for the worst, and still am in a way, yet I still post because it really helps me to evolve. I seldom respond to others' uploads mainly because I feel inadequate not having really anything substantial to offer and also because most uploads are trailer/epic hybrids which are a complete terra incognita for me (though I'm awed most of the times with what people post!). What really bothered me these last days were the loud and arrogant tantrums of people who at their age should know better but what re-peat posted maybe put an end to it.


----------



## Fer

Regarding to the issue of feedback…. This i show i see it.

The kind of feedback that one can get in this forum is the feedback of another composers, which can be useful and informative. A composer can give feedback adjusting their critique to the level of music knowledge that the composer is showing in his piece.

There are people that is just starting and doesnt have formal music education yet and there are people with lots of knowledge and years of experience in composition. I think that you cant judge the music of everybody applying the same level of criticism to everybody; and here comes the advantage of a composers forum. The listeners here are people with musical knowledge that are aware of how difficult is to compose something really great and that there is a long road until one is able to develope nice music. Thus, composers can give feedback adjusting their critique to the level of music knowledge that the composer who posted his music is showing in it. If the piece is not very good the critique can consist just in pointing some very minor issues that could improve the whole thing just a bit. If the piece is not be very good then those minor adjustments are not going to transform it into something great but they can make you grow as a composer just a little. So a forum like this and a feedback like this is a great possibility to learn how to improve your work just a little.

But if one thinks that he is a true master then he can always show his music to another kind of audience: the listeners that dont know nothing about music. This is another kind of feedback and the proof of fire about the real quality of your music i think. This audience is going to judge your music simply for how it sounds to their audiophille ears without taking into account how difficult is to compose music. Im talking about the audience that i able to enjoy the music of the true masters. So if one thinks that is also a master composing baroque music, he can just show his music to a Bach fan.

But composers are listeners also, that can evaluate also just as listeners, so when someone claims about himself that he is a genious (in this or any other forum) he should be prepared for the most demanding kind of critique... 

Anyway i disagree totally with the point of view that says that if one doesnt know nothing about music composition he should avoid critisizing others music. People have ears, and can apreciate beauty and quality with the same intensity that any composer. Saying the contrary sounds very weird to me.


----------



## dcoscina

Kas said:


> For me, the greatest disappointment comes from lack of feedback and criticism. I was lurking for a year and a half here before I decided to join and the main reason for doing so was for posting my music and having it evaluated by people with different levels of proficiency. Since I'm a hobbyist with no formal musical education I was prepared for the worst, and still am in a way, yet I still post because it really helps me to evolve. I seldom respond to others' uploads mainly because I feel inadequate not having really anything substantial to offer and also because most uploads are trailer/epic hybrids which are a complete terra incognita for me (though I'm awed most of the times with what people post!). What really bothered me these last days were the loud and arrogant tantrums of people who at their age should know better but what re-peat posted maybe put an end to it.


I agree. I would much rather someone say something critical instead of nothing at all. As artists it's our nature to want to share our work with an audience. No audience makes the act of creation a little less meaningful (this shouldn't be misconstrued as attention seeking). Sometimes it is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow but I've always been grateful to get some feedback. 

But I won't lie- when the comments are overwhelmingly positive, it feels frickin' great!


----------



## markleake

Fer said:


> Anyway i disagree totally with the point of view that says that if one doesnt know nothing about music composition he should avoid critisizing others music. People have ears, and can apreciate beauty and quality with the same intensity that any composer. Saying the contrary sounds very weird to me.


^ This. Beyond the tantrums and such, this was my main sticking point also. How could you believe otherwise?!


----------



## nordicguy

Morodiene said:


> I've been following this thread with much interest because I see myself on both sides of the coin here. I totally sympathize with jpg and his reaction (although I did not read the original thread). I'm nobody special, but I do love music and composing and because of that love, it's hard to take criticism sometimes - especially if it is directed at something I thought I actually did well.
> 
> And if it's just some guy I don't know on a forum who may or may not know as much as I do, then I may dismiss their comments/suggestions. Personally, I'll consider what everyone has to say, but may end up disregarding it if it goes against my instincts because in the end, it's my name on the score. That may be a hill I'll die on, but it's _my_ hill nonetheless. There's a big danger in writing for just one person that isn't yourself, IMO.
> 
> On the other hand, iron sharpens iron, and so to dismiss everyone that disagrees with me out of hand actually cheats me out of improving. Especially if several people are saying the same thing.
> 
> Since I do love what I do, I will keep doing it and keep learning how to be better regardless of the encouragement or discouragement of others. At least if there's improvement there's hope, and we can learn from even the unlikeliest of sources.


Wow, it sums it up, to me at least.


----------



## Arbee

For me, much of this comes down to "who am I composing for?". Peer groups can be helpful, caring and sharing much of the time - but at other times they can be spiteful, elitist, competitive etc etc. If you're composing for composers and musicians then you're a braver person than me!


----------



## nordicguy

Arbee said:


> For me, much of this comes down to "who am I composing for?". Peer groups can be helpful, caring and sharing much of the time - but at other times they can be spiteful, elitist, competitive etc etc. If you're composing for composers and musicians then you're a braver person than me!


V'got the highest respect for brave people!


----------



## markstyles

It is a great deal about who you are composing for.. Several years back, I did a retro pop ballad (a la 70's feel).. Where it had one synth string line (which was pretty common in those days, (only the first generation $1000 string libraries were out) the synth line was not fooling any, and no one cared).. I got this extremely detailed post on how to voice for complete strings. I appreciated the effort.. But would have seemed obvious, (I thought) That's certainly not what the song was about or needed.. The good point, was it made me step back and think of it that way.. But I was not willing to put in the work on that particular song at this point in time. A good critique, makes you step back, understand the point of the poster, and then decide if that' something you want to implement, or save for the next song.. 

A couple of years back, when George and Giles Martin worked on the Beatles "Love" Circus De Solei" George Martin found an acoustic demo of George Harrisons 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps", complete with a really poignant extra verse not used in the commercial release. With George Harrisons' wife's permission He wrote a truly exquisite string orchestration for it. Making the string arrangements for , 'Yesterday', She's Leaving Home', and Eleanor Rigby' standing in the dust. George Martin, didn't write out arrangements for 'all' Beatle songs. Some songs were 'farmed out' due to the sheer volume of material, and short time recording sessions they had.. My point is, that it took years, and many recorded versions by others to recognize, the full potential of 'Guitar Gently Weeps'.. Like I notice McCartney's current touring band is TOP NOTCH.. And the arrangements, for the most part are note for note. But the passage of time, has allowed McCartney, and his musicians, to find the real 'nuggets' of gold buried in the songs. They have been polished, and spotlights put on them. And I think some of that does happen here. some one more knowledgeable in a certain area, can point out something of use to the composer, and all of us here. 

I hear a few posts, where it seems to be a lesson in Kontakt scripting, and using every available articulation on some ones' sample drive.. Sometimes is seems like overkill.. The point is to make a good/great piece of music, not get caught up in computer technology. Although that's were the newest generation of libraries are headed.. 

The poster here has to learn what the other members are into.. Ones going to be a stickler for voicing, another choice of libraries etc.. and take their evaualation at street value.. 

Being from the pop world, (pop songs, a couple of synth lines, (then some lite Kontakt orchestral). I cannot begin to seriously evaluate some one seriously into classical writing. I can comment on the mood it creates, the technical aspects, EQ, mix etc.. And that's all I would venture to comment on.. I feel odd, by not posting anything. Cause I believe if you want evualuation from others, you need to give some too.


----------



## NoamL

Speaking only for myself - I write music to connect, communicate, express something, tell a story. So any person who likes music is qualified to give me feedback. Don't even care if they can't read music. Don't care if they can't tell a trumpet from a horn. Unless you were raised by wolves, musical literacy is your _birthright._

I am not _really_ the decider of whether my musical material is strong, just like it's not Louis CK who decides if his jokes are funny.

He may have an intuition for how to _structure_ a joke. He might write something that makes _himself_ chuckle.

But when he gets on stage the joke either lands or bombs.

"I write for myself" is an excuse. For every 1 comedian who actually is too smart for the room, there's 99 bad comics who just _think_ they are. Most of the people in the audience - meaning ordinary, noncomedian people - couldn't tell a _really_ funny or insightful joke to save their life. They can barely summon up a knock knock joke or two from memory and tell it with bad timing. Yet they are human and with that comes a keenly refined sense of what is funny _to_ them. Tickling _their_ sense of humor is the whole point of telling jokes. And sure, you can make people laugh through sheer pandering but you can also tell really insightful jokes - almost philosophy disguised as comedy. You can use comedy to get people to think and feel in ways they never would otherwise. Composers who say their music is "challenging" are usually just disdaining the work of communicating something to an audience. Makes me wonder why they expect audiences to gather in concert halls to hear it.


----------



## Arbee

NoamL said:


> Speaking only for myself - I write music to connect, communicate, express something, tell a story. So any person who likes music is qualified to give me feedback. Don't even care if they can't read music. Don't care if they can't tell a trumpet from a horn. Unless you were raised by wolves, musical literacy is your _birthright._
> 
> I am not _really_ the decider of whether my musical material is strong, just like it's not Louis CK who decides if his jokes are funny.
> 
> He may have an intuition for how to _structure_ a joke. He might write something that makes _himself_ chuckle.
> 
> But when he gets on stage the joke either lands or bombs.
> 
> "I write for myself" is an excuse. For every 1 comedian who actually is too smart for the room, there's 99 bad comics who just _think_ they are. Most of the people in the audience - meaning ordinary, noncomedian people - couldn't tell a _really_ funny or insightful joke to save their life. They can barely summon up a knock knock joke or two from memory and tell it with bad timing. Yet they are human and with that comes a keenly refined sense of what is funny _to_ them. Tickling _their_ sense of humor is the whole point of telling jokes. And sure, you can make people laugh through sheer pandering but you can also tell really insightful jokes - almost philosophy disguised as comedy. You can use comedy to get people to think and feel in ways they never would otherwise. Composers who say their music is "challenging" are usually just disdaining the work of communicating something to an audience. Makes me wonder why they expect audiences to gather in concert halls to hear it.


Nicely put. I firmly believe we need to seduce the audience, not assault them, nor insult them if they don't "get us".


----------



## David Stiles

NoamL said:


> Speaking only for myself - I write music to connect, communicate, express something, tell a story. So any person who likes music is qualified to give me feedback. Don't even care if they can't read music. Don't care if they can't tell a trumpet from a horn. Unless you were raised by wolves, musical literacy is your _birthright._
> 
> I am not _really_ the decider of whether my musical material is strong, just like it's not Louis CK who decides if his jokes are funny.
> 
> He may have an intuition for how to _structure_ a joke. He might write something that makes _himself_ chuckle.
> 
> But when he gets on stage the joke either lands or bombs.
> 
> "I write for myself" is an excuse. For every 1 comedian who actually is too smart for the room, there's 99 bad comics who just _think_ they are. Most of the people in the audience - meaning ordinary, noncomedian people - couldn't tell a _really_ funny or insightful joke to save their life. They can barely summon up a knock knock joke or two from memory and tell it with bad timing. Yet they are human and with that comes a keenly refined sense of what is funny _to_ them. Tickling _their_ sense of humor is the whole point of telling jokes. And sure, you can make people laugh through sheer pandering but you can also tell really insightful jokes - almost philosophy disguised as comedy. You can use comedy to get people to think and feel in ways they never would otherwise. Composers who say their music is "challenging" are usually just disdaining the work of communicating something to an audience. Makes me wonder why they expect audiences to gather in concert halls to hear it.



I very much agree with the point of view you've expressed here. You are right - expertise as a listener of music is deeply embedded in pretty much every human being to walk the face of the earth. After all, how often do you encounter a person who claims to not like music? I'm not sure I ever have.

Personally, I don't necessarily value the input of people who are good at making music any more than I value the point of view of people who have no particular aptitude for making it. Often, when I ask the "musically illiterate" for their opinions, they have strong feelings about how my music affected them, even if they aren't able to easily describe exactly what it is that they like or dislike so much. For people like that, it is more work for me to talk them through describing their reactions. But there is still much to be gained from the process if I am willing to put in the extra effort. 

When I ask people who are excellent musicians, they are able to articulate their critiques much more easily, but that doesn't mean that their enjoyment (or lack thereof) of the music is any more valid.


----------



## JohnG

David Stiles said:


> When I ask people who are excellent musicians, they are able to articulate their critiques much more easily, but that doesn't mean that their enjoyment (or lack thereof) of the music is any more valid.



I realise this is an old thread but I am surprised to see this idea -- that the response of "the man in the street" is equally valid to that of a knowledgeable musician.

I don't agree with that point of view. Knowledgeable musicians, whether that knowledge comes from training, practicing, playing or some combination of things, can identify and critique numerous aspects of a composition of which a non-musician will be either unaware, unable to specify, or simply not notice at all.

For music that is sentimental or intended to be nothing beyond nostalgia, or a raw howl or something, and is so simple that it has no formal structure to speak of, maybe the difference is much smaller, but for any piece that has ambition beyond "a nice tune" (and even there sometimes) the musician's critique is going to be not just more easily conveyed but cover a range of issues that a non-musician is unlikely to even know.

Here are three categories, though you could come up with many more:

*originality* -- structure, chord movement, melody, harmonic language, overall sound... (How often do we hear copy-cat music that people think is good but musicians realise instantly is a knock-off of someone else's work?)
*orchestration and idiomatic writing* -- does the piece work for the instrumentation or is it "trying" to accomplish goals that are not successful?
*repetitiousness / failure to "go" anywhere* -- although apparently desirable in many pop songs, the specific ways in which a piece gets into a rut are going to be identified more readily by a musician. (I'm not talking about a piece that, for artistic reasons, adopts some deliberately simple idea or is repetitious for a reason -- more about a piece that clearly wishes it were something else and the composer couldn't work out how to get there)
So I don't think the usefulness and completeness of the response is confined to how "easily" the musician can articulate his or her thoughts. There is a whole range of detail that only a musician can offer that would naturally be outside the scope of a non-musician's critique. It's the richness and variety of those thoughts, and the potential for the composer getting the criticism to get something beyond "I didn't like that part" or "I love the chorus."

I'm not talking about some academic thing either, fwiw.


----------



## germancomponist

JohnG said:


> I realise this is an old thread but I am surprised to see this idea -- that the response of "the man in the street" is equally valid to that of a knowledgeable musician. ...



I think I can understand you exactly, John! Great post!

Let me add something I have learned in the past. Sometimes, especially when a hype is created by the mass-media e.t.c., you can sell shit and the people will buy it. Am I joking here? No!
There are so many examples for that.
Music has to be nice or fun for the most people, bubble bubble bubble ..... . (Consciousness of the masses)


----------



## IoannisGutevas

JohnG said:


> I realise this is an old thread but I am surprised to see this idea -- that the response of "the man in the street" is equally valid to that of a knowledgeable musician.



I completely disagree. They are equally valid but for different reasons. 

As a musician no matter how far you have gone with your music studies there is one reason behind this art. To convey a feeling, to tell a story. Your story. Now if someone "gets it" its a sum of personal preference and experiences. 

A man on the street can tell you if your tune sounds good to him or not and you can take that knowledge and try to figure out whats wrong and make it better. The journey into understanding how he would like your story to be heard to figuring out how to shape your orchestration in order to succeed in pleasing his ears has a certain degree of difficulty and rewarding in the end. If thats your purpose in making music to please someone's ears if that someone is a client / film producer or a random man on the street then considering their opinion as "less important" is rather cruel. If you are born with ears you have a right to say what you like even if you say that you done like Bach its absolutely ok. 

Iam born with eyes and i don't like the paintings of Pablo Picasso. I wouldnt put a painting of him in my house even if you payed me. Does that make him not a great painter? No i just dont like his work. Is my opinion important? Well if Picasso wanted to make great sales and most of people thought like me then yes, my opinion would be more important than even a professional sucessful painter. 

With that said, for me here is why the professional musician opinion important. Its because you can ask him specific questions and get specific answers making the learning curve of what you want to achieve a lot easier and more comprehensive. In the end you can get great results in less time. 

Its not a matter of importance imo, its a matter of learning what you want and "exploiting" the strengths of each individual. A man of the street strength is his opinion and the professional musicians stength is his knowdlege. 

Finding the right people of the street to ask and the right professionals can elevate your music to higher standards  

Thats what i think at least.


----------



## muk

IoannisGutevas said:


> there is one reason behind this art. To convey a feeling, to tell a story. Your story.



Well I completely disagree with this. Music does not have to tell a story at all, much less the writers story. Just like a novel doesn't have to tell a story, much less the author's story (Roland Barthes' 'Death of the author' is important against this commonplace believe).
Music, like all art, has a very important intellectual component. It's intellectually interpretable. You can theorize about why each note is written the way it is, and why it couldn't be changed without diminishing or even destroying the piece. You can analyze harmony and structure, and how they are intertwined. You can analyze the form, and how the composition fulfills or undermines structural conventions. But of course you can only do that if you put in the effort to learn enough about music and music theory. So a layman on the street won't be able to give you any feedback on that.
Focusing on the emotional impact alone is a mistake. Beethoven made fun of a person that cried during one of his performances. It's clear that he didn't appreciate people who failed to grasp the musics intellectual component, and in fact you can argue that some of his music is intended as a musical contribution to a philosophical debate of the time.

This intellectual component is very often overlooked. I assume many people aren't even aware of it's existence. The emotional component is there as well, of course. But it's not all, and not what makes music art in my opinion.


----------



## Dave Connor

It's the use of the term 'valid' that is causing the trouble here I suspect. I remember the first time my Dad blasted Wagner's Tannhauser overture on the stereo when I was in my teens. It was an electrifying experience that of course was completely valid. I didn't understand anything much beyond the pure sound of it and therefore not able to appreciate innumerable aspects of it but still I enjoyed it as much as humanly possible I think. The point being that people are _themselves_ valid at whatever level of understanding of anything. And in a sense _equally valid_ as there is no point in robbing them of that distinction.

None of that changes John G's point that there are experts in various fields that have a far greater understanding of their subject than laymen and are more qualified to speak to the merits or lack-of contained in an example of it. Someone may prefer Andy Warhol's Campbells Soup Can to the Mona Lisa but objectively speaking there really isn't any comparison as one is an astonishing demonstration of art and the other a clever impulse that had a certain appeal.


----------



## Morodiene

IoannisGutevas said:


> Finding the right people of the street to ask and the right professionals can elevate your music to higher standards


 This is a really good point. There are some professionals that I would not listen to their advice based on the kind of music they write or hold in high regard. Most of these are in the "art for art's sake and if you don't like what I have to dish out than you're not an artist" camp, or those who simply have a different aesthetic than I do. But there are a select few who I respect for what they've done and how well they understand the process to be able to objectively pinpoint problem areas in my work.

There are also some non-professionals whose instincts I trust - not from the words they say, but by observing their body language while listening to my music. I can tell when I've lost their attention, and at those places I make note to find the problem there. In fact, I think that this feedback is the most genuine, because they don't even know they're doing it or why. 

But IMO, not all opinions are equally valid. To listen to all as equally valid I think would be disastrous and would cause the music to lose all sense of individuality of the composer. 

Of course, all are free to _express_ their opinions, but the onus is on the composer being criticized to weed out what is of value and what can be discarded.

On a side note, it is surprising to me how many people do not "get" what it's like to compose, even if they are trained musicians. And most non-pros - both musicians and non-musicians - just give me a blank stare when I tell them I compose. I might as well be telling them quantum physics theories or something. So it makes it hard to bounce off ideas on most people - they need to hear the finished product in as most realistic a light as one can put it in for feedback.


----------



## Smikes77

I just wanted to get this off my chest and this seems to be the right thread to do it...

I played a piano piece for a friend of mine (a lawyer, yeah I know), Rachmaninov Piano Prelude No.4 In D Major.

When I`d finished, his response was:

"Drags on a bit doesn`t it"

Not sure how useful Sergei would have found that.


----------



## Morodiene

Smikes77 said:


> I just wanted to get this off my chest and this seems to be the right thread to do it...
> 
> I played a piano piece for a friend of mine (a lawyer, yeah I know), Rachmaninov Piano Prelude No.4 In D Major.
> 
> When I`d finished, his response was:
> 
> "Drags on a bit doesn`t it"
> 
> Not sure how useful Sergei would have found that.


A great example...listening to what a non-musician says is not that helpful, but perhaps if you were able to observe him while you played you could see places where perhaps you could do more in your interpretation to hold their interest. Some people are just tough though, so again, not all are valid. Someone with ADD/ADHD might not be helpful even with their body language unless they're on their meds.

Also, it's a 5+ minute piece. Who listens to music - just music - for that long anymore? So if there's any lull in what you're communicating at all, you can bet their minds have wandered and they're bored. It's a particular challenge for pianists, I think, but certainly all musicians struggle with this.


----------



## nordicguy

Creation is about choices.
To me, choices apply to witch criticisms you'll take into account and the ones you'll go over.
I think there's something to come up with from so much sources.
Sometimes even coming from some annoying ones...


----------



## Smikes77

Morodiene said:


> A great example...listening to what a non-musician says is not that helpful, but perhaps if you were able to observe him while you played you could see places where perhaps you could do more in your interpretation to hold their interest. Some people are just tough though, so again, not all are valid. Someone with ADD/ADHD might not be helpful even with their body language unless they're on their meds.
> 
> Also, it's a 5+ minute piece. Who listens to music - just music - for that long anymore? So if there's any lull in what you're communicating at all, you can bet their minds have wandered and they're bored. It's a particular challenge for pianists, I think, but certainly all musicians struggle with this.




I guarantee you anyway I interpreted that piece would not have sustained his interest. Or indeed ANY piece. You are correct in one way though in that the length is normally an issue. I don't think it's a struggle for pianists particular as much as I think it's a struggle for every musician.

He's used to the repetitive nature of pop songs, where the chorus blasts out in less than a minute and lasts no more than 3 1/2 minutes. This is much more accessible.


----------



## muk

Expanding on the thought above a little, if music focuses solely on the emotional component it's called kitsch. That just pleases the ears, but not the brain. If music focuses on the intellectual component alone it won't be a pleasure to listen to. This can be a problem of avant-garde music that lost touch with it's audience. Great music manages to be both intellectually and emotionally appealing. That's why I am of the opinion that composers need to know about both aspects to write great music. Dumb it down and the music loses much of its power - basically it makes for incidental background sound that doesn't need much attention nor thought. It can be consumed on the fly. Disregard the emotional aspect and you have something that may be interesting on paper, but doesn't work as an aural impression.


----------



## GtrString

Distinguishing between the emotional and the intellectual requires an understanding that mind and body are different entities, as the french philosopher Descartes once claimed. This understanding is very dominant in western cultures, but is also challenged by modern psychology. You can argue that emotions are not irrational, but instead is based on a deeper level of knowledge inherent in our material conditions. Thus emotional reactions in fact can be seen as rooted in rationality.

So, with this position, the emotional argument in music comes around a second time as not just appealing for the body, but also for the mind at the same time. We can in other words depend and trust on our immediate and intuitive reactions towards music. Of course you can learn aquired tastes, and appreciate that, but going with the emotional rationale for judging music is either way a good starting point, imho. Beats doesn't turn us into beasts 

What most of us could be better at, could be is to respect different emotional reactions, though, including our own, and maybe inquire more into why we react the ways we do. A solid source for understanding ourselves (and consequently our fellow man), and thereby become better not just to express ourselves through music, but also manipulate expressions in the musical language, and thereby become more genuine artists.

For the music critic this also means that critique cannot be done from the position of nowhere, as it is not sufficient just to do it intellectually, it must also be understood in context as rooted within a personal emotional reaction too. So, understanding that emotional reaction in depth becomes crucial to become a great music critic, whom can put emphasis on the most important elements in a certain piece of music and feed it back to us in a way we can depend on and trust. I haven't seen many of those, I'm afraid, still they might exist..


----------



## Parsifal666

Morodiene said:


> But IMO, not all opinions are equally valid. To listen to all as equally valid I think would be disastrous and would cause the music to lose all sense of individuality of the composer.
> 
> Of course, all are free to _express_ their opinions, but the onus is on the composer being criticized to weed out what is of value and what can be discarded.
> 
> On a side note, it is surprising to me how many people do not "get" what it's like to compose, even if they are trained musicians. And most non-pros - both musicians and non-musicians - just give me a blank stare when I tell them I compose. I might as well be telling them quantum physics theories or something. So it makes it hard to bounce off ideas on most people - they need to hear the finished product in as most realistic a light as one can put it in for feedback.



Great post Morodiene. There are opinions (the kind everyone has), and then there are the (yes I'll say it) objective, educated conclusions of the thoroughly informed. The elite class that Morodiene pointed out are often (in my experience) the latter (so let's throw out as "Elite Musical Opinions" those of the faux intellectuals who can't read a score and/or can't tell a G minor from a B major 7th, Bach from Schoenberg...yes, that last has happened, etc.). I do favor the opinions of the latter mentioned, while the vox populi I only pay attention to when I'm being paid by them...or whoever has the big cash (and I'm not alone on this).

One of the things I've noticed over the years is how indignant/defensive the "regular", or casual music listener is over what's good in his or her own mind versus the informed opinions of musicologists, music graduates, people who have been doing music production, engineering, recording for decades (take a pick or combine at will). I can't count how many times, when I was much younger, I had to explain the Beatles or Wagner to people, or why Beyoncé is basically carrying on the template that Motown, Stevie Wonder and (yes) the Beatles pioneered and took as far as it could go musically. I've been verbally abused, and after awhile learned that I was killing Santa Claus, and became quietly wiser. Do I know what is great musically, from having studied music all my life? Not necessarily. Would I pay attention to a music graduate who criticizes coherently the clumsy voice leading and who-knows-what-they-were-thinking plasticine production of most MTV Popular music today before the "Beyoncé rules, you're an a#@hole!" keening of a casual listener? Of course I would. Then again, I might just pay close attention to the Beyoncé song in general because I might learn something about getting that sometimes-desirable, robotic sound.

When it comes to people not "getting" music composers ("what do you really do, I mean, for work?)...it happens to me constantly, and I do make (a little) money at music. I get looks that vary from indignant "well, that means you don't work every day like a man should" to " oh hah hah, you must do something else but you just don't want to tell me now". I have a hard time hiding my aversion to such people, and this is why I usually only associate with the other crowd mentioned above (unless it's a forum like this, where there are all types, and such disdain doesn't usually occur).


----------



## ZenFaced

No waaaaaay in hell will I ever, ever post my music for constructive criticism in this or any other forum. If I had a specific question about orchestration or layering, yes I may post a snippet relevant to the issue at hand. But if you post your piece simply for a reaction --- well let me tell you that are just looking for trouble - say hello to Pandora's box and its a very big box.

Without mentioning any names, there are quite a few here in this forum who are the first to point out "problems" of an innocent member's piece when they should be the last person here making such comments. Not sure if its an ego thing or not. But frankly when it comes to certain types of opinions/critiques of someone else's music, I wouldn't always trust them.

Remember this - there are a lot of well known artists who were critiqued by their peers behind the scenes but end up making popular, beautiful music, Now just because its popular doesn't mean its perfect, but what I'm getting at is, if your client is happy then who cares what everyone else thinks. If you don't have a client and you create music just for the sake of creating music, and you like what you created, then who cares what everyone else thinks. There will always be room for "perfection" and we all know a piece is never "finished" just abandoned. Just be prepared if you decide to post your music here. Just sayin'


----------



## Parsifal666

ZenFaced said:


> No waaaaaay in hell will I ever, ever post my music for constructive criticism in this or any other forum. If I had a specific question about orchestration or layering, yes I may post a snippet relevant to the issue at hand. But if you post your piece simply for a reaction --- well let me tell you that are just looking for trouble - say hello to Pandora's box and its a very big box.
> 
> Without mentioning any names, there are quite a few here in this forum who are the first to point out "problems" of an innocent member's piece when they should be the last person here making such comments. Not sure if its an ego thing or not. But frankly when it comes to certain types of opinions/critiques of someone else's music, I wouldn't always trust them.
> 
> Remember this - there are a lot of well known artists who were critiqued by their peers behind the scenes but end up making popular, beautiful music, Now just because its popular doesn't mean its perfect, but what I'm getting at is, if your client is happy then who cares what everyone else thinks. If you don't have a client and you create music just for the sake of creating music, and you like what you created, then who cares what everyone else thinks. There will always be room for "perfection" and we all know a piece is never "finished" just abandoned. Just be prepared if you decide to post your music here. Just sayin'



Is this really your sixth post? I couldn't tell.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

ZenFaced said:


> No waaaaaay in hell will I ever, ever post my music for constructive criticism in this or any other forum. If I had a specific question about orchestration or layering, yes I may post a snippet relevant to the issue at hand. But if you post your piece simply for a reaction --- well let me tell you that are just looking for trouble - say hello to Pandora's box and its a very big box.
> 
> Without mentioning any names, there are quite a few here in this forum who are the first to point out "problems" of an innocent member's piece when they should be the last person here making such comments. Not sure if its an ego thing or not. But frankly when it comes to certain types of opinions/critiques of someone else's music, I wouldn't always trust them.
> 
> Remember this - there are a lot of well known artists who were critiqued by their peers behind the scenes but end up making popular, beautiful music, Now just because its popular doesn't mean its perfect, but what I'm getting at is, if your client is happy then who cares what everyone else thinks. If you don't have a client and you create music just for the sake of creating music, and you like what you created, then who cares what everyone else thinks. There will always be room for "perfection" and we all know a piece is never "finished" just abandoned. Just be prepared if you decide to post your music here. Just sayin'



ZenFaced: You're wise, posting compositions on this site is very risky indeed. I do it not because I want feedback, but because I know if there's even just one listener who appreciates and enjoys the meaning I've put into my work I know I've made my small contribution to music. There's an old saying: "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one". Out of all the useless criticism I've received only one comment was helpful, somebody suggested that I use VSL's MIR for my reverb and orchestral spatial issues and he was right, I bought MIR and discovered immediately a great improvement to my orchestral samples.

Most people live in fear, albeit often unconscious that they are motivated by fear. Mature, integrated people don't waste their time being reflexively critical of the works of others, they're too busy writing and producing and trying to improve their craft. The music business is a nasty, brutal place where the monetization of value is the only thing that counts. I bet the people most critical of other's works are those poor schleps sitting in their studios worried about paying the rent, worried about where the next job is coming from. I am normally empathetic towards people in that predicament, but it so often causes people to lash out at the works of others they themselves don't even have a clue as to what is motivating their stupid "critiques", so empathy becomes more difficult, and instead I feel pity.

Talented listeners listen to everything: texture, counterpoint, melody, harmonic progressions, levels of consonance and dissonance, timbral color, form and structure, all can be appreciated and considered. Around here however, it seems many people are neurotically fixated on which library people use and which one is "better". It's like arguing over Mac or PC, or which DAW one uses. It's really dumb. Real music criticism often takes time, repeated listening of the same work, and a lot of thought. The music business thrives on conformity, whichever artist is making the most money selling the most records (or scoring the highest paid films) is the usually the one people adulate and imitate. It's all about who can monetize their craft, as though that somehow reveals the artistic, cultural and intellectual value of such work. It's nonsense. Anxiety and frustration abound and people are often quite unconscious of how their anxiety and frustration impacts their perception of others and the music of others.

It doesn't have to be this way, but people first would have to grow up and wake up, and take responsibility for their negativity and their all-too-frequent need to point out what they think are the flaws in another's work without even questioning the value of their own perceptions or recognizing the mediocrity of their own compositions/recordings. This site is a microcosm of the world, the one-upsmanship pervading our culture is destructive to human relationships and won't advance the art of music composition.

Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com


----------



## muk

ZenFaced said:


> ut if you post your piece simply for a reaction --- well let me tell you that are just looking for trouble - say hello to Pandora's box and its a very big box.



It's pretty sad you should think so. Every now and then there have been critiques that were not uttered in a good spirit, and not with the intent to help the critizised. There have been a few incidents where things got really bad and way beyond what was called for, or civil. And mind you, this goes both ways - there were also cases were reasonable and helpful critique was handled less than gracefully by the critiqued. But overall I feel like the great majority of posters does so with genuinely good intentions. They take the time to listen to the piece in question, and formulate a constructive feedback.



jsg said:


> Around here however, it seems many people are neurotically fixated on which library people use and which one is "better".



Jerry, maybe you are looking in the wrong place. What you seem to seek is feedback from musicologists and composers of concert hall music. However, you are posting in a forum that has 'Virtual Instrument' in it's title, and where the majority of posters seems to have a background in film or tv music. So it's not out of place that people will discuss the quality of the mockup as much as the music itself. And as somebody who doesn't respond very well to being critizised in my opinion you could be a bit more moderate about condemning others.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Jerry said:


> I'm not condemning anybody, I am stating my observations of people's words. Too often, the mockup is the only thing people discuss, as though our medium has no purpose other than to imitate an acoustic orchestra. Music is far more than that. The term "mockup" is, to my mind, only appropriate when creating a score for a director, producer, conductor, etc. so that they can hear what the music sounds like because the music is meant to be played by live players. It doesn't apply to those musicians, like myself, who view the virtual orchestra as a new musical medium. I don't make mockups, I make interpretations of my music using virtual instruments, in the same way a photographer doesn't make mockups of paintings, she makes photographs, or as a filmmaker doesn't make mockups for live plays, he makes films. Nobody critiques a photograph because it does, or does not, look like a painting, and nobody critiques a film because it is not a live play. The same should apply to virtual instruments.


----------



## gregh

I do not think there are any technical requirements for critiquing music beyond being an experienced and attentive listener. Without a doubt having no training will limit what you can say though. The validity of an opinion on music will differ according to the claim being made - the old saw "In matters of taste there can be no disagreement" holds true. If someone claims to like or not like something they have a privileged position from which to make that claim - basically unless you say they are lying you have to accept the truth of whatever they say.

On the other hand if people claim something is good or bad or is or is not music then debate opens up. It is difficult to predict what will be an interesting claim before it is made - maybe even afterward. Take the Beyoncé example - if someone honestly says they "love Beyoncé" then they do. If they say Beyoncé makes great music then that might be true if they are using "great music" to mean "music I love" or "music that is really popular at the moment". [which is quite possible under common usage of language - ie the context might signal that] If they mean Beyoncé makes music that significantly extends the European musical tradition in ways both appealing and intellectually challenging then the truth of that claim is more open to a challenge.

(there's also going to be the challenge of defining "Beyoncé " - eg are we talking about a person or a system of production)


re feedback - something I had my (IT Design) students do a lot was present work to the class and then ask for feedback on three specific items they were unsure of - not just ask for feedback in some general way. I found this led to more productive discussions and also trained the presenting student in being open to sharing uncertainties, critiquing their own work, in becoming humble publicly and many other things. Humility is difficult to come by for some of us but is an incredibly powerful personality trait and can learned


----------



## muk

jsg said:


> Mature, integrated people don't waste their time being reflexively critical of the works of others, they're too busy writing and producing and trying to improve their craft.





jsg said:


> instead I feel pity.





jsg said:


> Around here however, it seems many people are neurotically fixated on which library people use and which one is "better". It's like arguing over Mac or PC, or which DAW one uses. It's really dumb.





jsg said:


> or recognizing the mediocrity of their own compositions/recordings.


It's the choice of these words that I find unjust and uncalled for.

I agree with you that the critiques could focus more on the music itself instead of the quality of the mockup. I try to do that myself when giving feedback. However, it is a forum about virtual instruments, not about composition or music per se. That's something to keep in mind.


----------



## ZenFaced

Parsifal666 said:


> Is this really your sixth post? I couldn't tell.



??? Hmmmm. If you had the time to count how many post I made, I'll take your word for it. I guess this makes 7 posts under this user name. Keep me posted with future updates


----------



## Karma

jsg said:


> I bet the people most critical of other's works are those poor schleps sitting in their studios worried about paying the rent, worried about where the next job is coming from.


Woah, what an unbelievably narrow-minded & ignorant opinion. I followed your threads a few months back when you first joined VI, and people were not critical. They were giving you honest feedback from their own experience listening to your work... Nice to see that your attitude still hasn't changed.


----------



## Smikes77

muk said:


> It's pretty sad you should think so. Every now and then there have been critiques that were not uttered in a good spirit, and not with the intent to help the critizised. There have been a few incidents where things got really bad and way beyond what was called for, or civil. And mind you, this goes both ways - there were also cases were reasonable and helpful critique was handled less than gracefully by the critiqued. But overall I feel like the great majority of posters does so with genuinely good intentions. They take the time to listen to the piece in question, and formulate a constructive feedback.



I would echo this. 

Whenever I have posted any music I am grateful that anyone here (and I`ve only met one or two in the flesh) has taken time out of their day to listen to music that I have worked (hard) on, and have found the comments pleasant, and not felt the need to hide to behind the couch so to speak.

Some are very generous with their feedback (in terms of content), and some give just a few words, but most comments of others music I have found to come from a good place.


----------



## Smikes77

ZenFaced said:


> ??? Hmmmm. If you have so much time on your hands to count how many post I made, I'll take your word for it. I guess this makes 7 posts under this user name. Keep me posted with future updates



Yes, that`s 7. Just hover the mouse over your avatar. Takes a millisecond.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

muk said:


> It's the choice of these words that I find unjust and uncalled for.
> 
> I agree with you that the critiques could focus more on the music itself instead of the quality of the mockup. I try to do that myself when giving feedback. However, it is a forum about virtual instruments, not about composition or music per se. That's something to keep in mind.



Perhaps, but if the listener doesn't listen well to the melodies, the harmonies, the structure, the orchestration, the way in which the composer creates variations and development, that will affect how they hear the virtual instruments. The criticism I embrace comes from people's whose ear and aesthetic I know and trust. Experience, talent and knowledge count when it comes to how much weight to give an opinion. But even if the critic is really good at what they do, if they get their kicks putting others down (to make themselves look better) I also dismiss that. *<<REMAINDER OF POST DELETED BY MODERATOR. PLEASE DO NOT BRING SECOND HAND INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS INTO PUBLIC THREADS>>*


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Karma said:


> Woah, what an unbelievably narrow-minded & ignorant opinion. I followed your threads a few months back when you first joined VI, and people were not critical. They were giving you honest feedback from their own experience listening to your work... Nice to see that your attitude still hasn't changed.



Yeah? So why didn't you post the next sentence that came after it? Leaving it out distorts the meaning of what I was saying. Is that what you wanted to do?


----------



## Dave Connor

jsg said: 
_I bet the people most critical of other's works are those poor schleps sitting in their studios worried about paying the rent, worried about where the next job is coming from._

Always nice to hear an accurate description of Mozart.


----------



## Karma

jsg said:


> Yeah? So why didn't you post the next sentence that came after it? Leaving it out distorts the meaning of what I was saying. Is that what you wanted to do?


Yes I did see that, "it doesn't have to be this way". Have you asked yourself that? You were the one responding to the feedback with the condescending and belittling comments. I thought after taking some time away you'd perhaps changed that outlook - seems not. Shame, really.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Karma said:


> Yes I did see that, "it doesn't have to be this way". Have you asked yourself that? You were the one responding to the feedback with the condescending and belittling comments. I thought after taking some time away you'd perhaps changed that outlook - seems not. Shame, really.



No, you missed the part where I said I feel empathy for people in that position, until their arrogance and frustration causes them to dismiss and belittle others. The next sentence I wrote was: _I am normally empathetic towards people in that predicament, but it so often causes people to lash out at the works of others they themselves don't even have a clue as to what is motivating their stupid "critiques", so empathy becomes more difficult, and instead I feel pity.
_


----------



## Smikes77

And also, I don`t know about anyone else here, but I have found that music attracts more opinions than any other work/art out there.

Perhaps because people have the radio on in the car, go out clubbing, have their favourite bands etc, so everyone is an "expert", and believe their view is the right one.

As I was gaining knowledge I hoped to find that the music I liked was also "good".


----------



## Parsifal666

Wow, this was almost a good thread.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

"Hey, hey, we're the Monkees
And people say we monkey around
But we're too busy singing
To put anybody down"


----------



## mac

If you want smoke blown up your arse and praise for everything you make, you post on soundcloud. If you want something ripped apart and inspected, you upload to a forum full of producers. If you want to know whether you've _really_ made something good, play it to children.

(or send it in to one of the @mverta unleashed sessions)


----------



## jononotbono

I share some of my music on VI Control. It's fun getting feedback from people and there's always so much to learn from people of all walks of life and ability. Even if it's just an idea or change of perspective.


----------



## nordicguy

gregh said:


> I do not think there are any technical requirements for critiquing music beyond being an experienced and attentive listener...
> ...Humility is difficult to come by for some of us but is an incredibly powerful personality trait and can learned


This is a great post!
Rarely hear about humility, often think about it.
Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Smikes77

mac said:


> If you want smoke blown up your arse and praise for everything you make, you post on soundcloud. If you want something ripped apart and inspected, you upload to a forum full of producers. If you want to know whether you've _really_ made something good, play it to children.
> 
> (or send it in to one of the @mverta unleashed sessions)



Are you calling Mike Verta a child?


----------



## Rodney Money

ZenFaced said:


> No waaaaaay in hell will I ever, ever post my music for constructive criticism in this or any other forum. If I had a specific question about orchestration or layering, yes I may post a snippet relevant to the issue at hand. But if you post your piece simply for a reaction --- well let me tell you that are just looking for trouble - say hello to Pandora's box and its a very big box.
> 
> Without mentioning any names, there are quite a few here in this forum who are the first to point out "problems" of an innocent member's piece when they should be the last person here making such comments. Not sure if its an ego thing or not. But frankly when it comes to certain types of opinions/critiques of someone else's music, I wouldn't always trust them.
> 
> Remember this - there are a lot of well known artists who were critiqued by their peers behind the scenes but end up making popular, beautiful music, Now just because its popular doesn't mean its perfect, but what I'm getting at is, if your client is happy then who cares what everyone else thinks. If you don't have a client and you create music just for the sake of creating music, and you like what you created, then who cares what everyone else thinks. There will always be room for "perfection" and we all know a piece is never "finished" just abandoned. Just be prepared if you decide to post your music here. Just sayin'


Go ahead and post. I love hearing what others think, and so far I've never broke down in a pit of despair. I've got one up right now.


----------



## desert




----------



## robgb

I can't tell you if it's any good. I can only tell you whether or not I like it.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

"I think we should take off and nuke the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure."


----------



## Morodiene

Smikes77 said:


> I would echo this.
> 
> Whenever I have posted any music I am grateful that anyone here (and I`ve only met one or two in the flesh) has taken time out of their day to listen to music that I have worked (hard) on, and have found the comments pleasant, and not felt the need to hide to behind the couch so to speak.
> 
> Some are very generous with their feedback (in terms of content), and some give just a few words, but most comments of others music I have found to come from a good place.


I agree. It was scary posting my first composition on here, but the feedback I received was overwhelmingly helpful. Not all of it was good. but honestly, those not-so-good responses were the most helpful.

I guess it does come down to the question of why you post your music: is it to let people hear what you've done and do with it what they will, or is it to get feedback that will help you improve? The former is fine...I've been on some forums where people post performances and some say they welcome feedback, and others say they do not. Perhaps that would be a good practice when posting.

But really, what person would not benefit from improvement? I get the idea of feeling you've "finished" a composition and you're not about to go messing around with it, but even then there are takeaways for the future compositions to be had from many of the critiques I've seen on this forum. 

Some people, however, could learn to temper their speech with empathy for the critiqued. I try not to say things in a way that would make it harder for them to sift through to what is actually being said because it's littered with judgments and insults.


----------



## Parsifal666

Morodiene said:


> Some people, however, could learn to temper their speech with empathy for the critiqued. I try not to say things in a way that would make it harder for them to sift through to what is actually being said because it's littered with judgments and insults.



+1,000,000



Morodiene said:


> But really, what person would not benefit from improvement? I get the idea of feeling you've "finished" a composition and you're not about to go messing around with it, but even then there are takeaways for the future compositions to be had from many of the critiques I've seen on this forum.



This carries a lot of validity as well. For me though, many of my compositions I hold in highest regard are so uniquely personal that when I'm finished I can't see any reason to post them up for critique, unless I choose to for critiques concerning the orchestration and engineering. Because they are so "me" any criticism of the actual composition is invalid, not just the input of trolls but _anyone_. I reached deep inside and brought it out, labored forever making sure I was representing it as myself, and felt it finished because I accomplished that as truly as possible. Only criticism I would see as ad hominem, whether expert or troll. And I don't care how pretentious that might sound, that's what I feel. Said works are me laid bare, whether indecently exposed or not...


----------



## Ashermusic

There are two problems with posting musical work here, in my view:

1. Everybody is in, but not everybody knows what they are talking about, and even then it is subjective.

2. There is a general "can't see the forest for the trees" syndrome, too much "at bar 51 on the 4th beat, it sounds synthy" type comments.

So I would only post musical work when and if:

1. You are unsure about aspects of it and genuinely want critical feedback and not an "attaboy" and have a thick skin.

2. You want to post it and are happy to have feedback but basically you are happy with it and don't really give a crap about those who don't like it.

Example 2 would be when I post


----------



## Parsifal666

Ashermusic said:


> 2. You want to post it and are happy to have feedback but basically you are happy with it and don't really give a crap about those who don't like it.
> 
> Example 2 would be when I post



This sounds like the best bet to me. If you're confident that what you've done is to your satisfaction, and have learned to conscientiously put on Internet Armor when confronted with baseless criticisms, go for it.

I've seen people go post after post defending what they've done, lashing out, or wondering what if they'd used a library with better legato...in fact, I finally realized in the past week just how often people talk about legato here (it's hilariously obsequious, and at the same time kind of sad).

Actually I have to partly take back that last...how sad can it be? This is a forum about virtual instruments, including how they're implemented into a project.


----------



## muk

What I don't get, if a criticism is baseless, why would it bother you (as long as it isn't insulting, of course)? If it doesn't have any substance it should be pretty easily shrugged off, no? I'm a bit baffled because I experienced the Member's Composition section as a helpful and friendly place. It's true, it's not just pats on the back. But I experienced the criticisms uttered as done so with the intention to help.

Seeing that at least a few people here obviously had a different experience is rather sad. Nobody should be afraid to post their music here. Could a subsection help where anybody can post music, but with comments disabled? Anybody who wanted their music to be heard but not criticised could post there. Any other ideas how the current state could be improved upon? There seems to be some demand for not having the mockup discussed, but the music only. This should be possible with a remark in the op like 'Please disregard the mockup, I am looking for feedback on the music only', I guess. In these cases it would be helpful to post a score along with the music if possible - makes it easier to give an informed feedback.


----------



## Ashermusic

muk said:


> What I don't get, if a criticism is baseless, why would it bother you (as long as it isn't insulting, of course)? If it doesn't have any substance it should be pretty easily shrugged off, no? I'm a bit baffled because I experienced the Member's Composition section as a helpful and friendly place. It's true, it's not just pats on the back. But I experienced the criticisms uttered as done so with the intention to help.
> 
> Seeing that at least a few people here obviously had a different experience is rather sad. Nobody should be afraid to post their music here. Could a subsection help where anybody can post music, but with comments disabled? Anybody who wanted their music to be heard but not criticised could post there. Any other ideas how the current state could be improved upon? There seems to be some demand for not having the mockup discussed, but the music only. This should be possible with a remark in the op like 'Please disregard the mockup, I am looking for feedback on the music only', I guess. In these cases it would be helpful to post a score along with the music if possible - makes it easier to give an informed feedback.



Nah, people need to simply put on their big boy pants and know that if they go into a kitchen, they may experience some heat.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

Well at least speaking for myself I find the community and feedback I get in the members composition section very helpful. Sure it is the nature of music that not everybody is liking what I post but anyways, I don´t post things here to get just this "Yes, and Amen". Exactly the critic I get was and still is for me the reason why to post because I think that the majority of members here are very helpful and regardless if they work as hobbiest or professionals in music, I would never dismiss a critic by saying: Well you say that, please present me your work so that I can evulate how much your opinion might be valid to be considered. From my humble opinion: The best critics I often get are from non musicians, like my wife. I ask her constantly, and often she is right without knowing anything regarding voice leading, harmony theory or basic structure. But she is a good example for me that you don´t need a professional musician to know if your music does have a connection to your audience or not. Sure if somebody is rude and just shits at me that would be not nice, but I never experienced something like that here which proves that the vast majority of members are very generous, helpful and always worth to ask about other opinions. Just my experience and way of seeing it.


----------



## Parsifal666

muk said:


> What I don't get, if a criticism is baseless, why would it bother you (as long as it isn't insulting, of course)? If it doesn't have any substance it should be pretty easily shrugged off, no? .



You are absolutely right.


----------



## Ashermusic

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Well at least speaking for myself I find the community and feedback I get in the members composition section very helpful. Sure it is the nature of music that not everybody is liking what I post but anyways, I don´t post things here to get just this "Yes, and Amen". Exactly the critic I get was and still is for me the reason why to post because I think that the majority of members here are very helpful and regardless if they work as hobbiest or professionals in music, I would never dismiss a critic by saying: Well you say that, please present me your work so that I can evulate how much your opinion might be valid to be considered. From my humble opinion: The best critics I often get are from non musicians, like my wife. I ask her constantly, and often she is right without knowing anything regarding voice leading, harmony theory or basic structure. But she is a good example for me that you don´t need a professional musician to know if your music does have a connection to your audience or not. Sure if somebody is rude and just shits at me that would be not nice, but I never experienced something like that here which proves that the vast majority of members are very generous, helpful and always worth to ask about other opinions. Just my experience and way of seeing it.




Agreed, If I only want professionals to comment, I send it to my friends who are professionals. If I post it here it is because I want a range of assessors.

It is more about the substance of the comment. If someone says something thoughtful like, "Jay, I am not sure that oboe instrument you are using is sitting all that well, it is a little in your face, you might want to rethink it" I will give that some serious consideration.

If they write, again, "It sounds synthy at bar 49 on the fourth beat" I will probably dismiss that person as a bit of a chowderhead, as we say in Boston.


----------



## mac

Ashermusic said:


> If they write, again, "It sounds synthy at bar 49 on the fourth beat" I will probably dismiss that person as a bit of a chowderhead, as we say in Boston.



What if your stuff *does* sound synthy at bar 49 though?


----------



## Ashermusic

mac said:


> What if your stuff *does* sound synthy at bar 49 though?



If it does, I already know it and have chosen not to care about it, and I don't need a guy on a forum to tell me that.


----------



## KEnK

Mr Gerber-

Perhaps you might consider your approach to this particular forum
It is what it is after all.
I usually avoid your threads, not because of your music (I've been impressed w/ your composition skills)
but because I've come to expect a fairly high level of argument, disparagement, and general negative banter.
This particular thread keeps coming up in my alerts, so I took a peek again-
same old circular non productive argument.

I invite you to think about what it is you bring to this forum-
and why some (most) members find it such a satisfying and encouraging place.
I've had my share of arguments here and I now attempt to refrain from those ultimately pointless kinds of banter.

There's a better way to communicate.
I'm working on that myself now.
Peace and Good Luck

k


----------



## ZenFaced

Smikes77 said:


> Yes, that`s 7. Just hover the mouse over your avatar. Takes a millisecond.



I guess this makes 8. I really appreciate you and Parsif keeping tabs of how many posts I make. Kindly keep me updated. P.S. I was wondering do I get a prize once I get to 10 posts??


----------



## ZenFaced

robgb said:


> I can't tell you if it's any good. I can only tell you whether or not I like it.


----------



## robgb

sherief83 said:


> I think no matter what the argument is, we all can recognize good music when we hear it, but if we hear good music plus AMAZING mockup, how can we ignore that? it demands respect in the end. After all this is a VI form and most posters are learning how to use VI in the best possible way.


Given the nature of this forum, if I were to post music I would pay little attention to the criticism of the music itself and CLOSE attention to the criticism of the mockup. My music is my music and some will like it while others will hate it. But mock-ups, unlike music, can be observed in a more objective light, and any advice in that area would always be welcomed.


----------



## Morodiene

muk said:


> What I don't get, if a criticism is baseless, why would it bother you (as long as it isn't insulting, of course)? If it doesn't have any substance it should be pretty easily shrugged off, no?


Yes, but many of us take ourselves way to seriously. These compositions are our _babies_ - warts and all. So it's a process, I think, of becoming more thick-skinned. Or recognize that you can't be, and choose more carefully what you submit to a forum created for critiques.


----------



## afterlight82

Simple truth - playability aside (and even that is pretty subjective depending on the skill of the performer), there is no objective metric by which the quality of a piece of music or a recording can be measured (notes per minute? chords per bar? Number of tonal deviations, key changes per minute?). None. It's all just preference. That's not to say consensus doesn't arise, but it's all just opinions, even when in herd form. And you know what they say about opinions...everybody has them.


----------



## muk

afterlight82 said:


> there is no objective metric by which the quality of a piece of music or a recording can be measured



That's very true, fortunately. But:




afterlight82 said:


> It's all just preference.



That's a non-sequitur, and very wrong in my opinion. (By the way, are you of the opinion that it is the same with literature (or any art), that's all just preference there as well?) If it was true the only thing that could be said about music would be either 'I like it', or 'I don't like it'. But music has to offer quite a bit more than just that. I think your statement is only true for the emotional component of music. After hearing the same piece of music, person A might say 'This touched me most deeply', whereas person B might say 'That was boring, I didn't feel anything'. Neither of them is wrong, because the emotional reaction is a personal thing. However, there is a very important intellectual component to music, and to all art, which you seem to be missing completely. It's that component that makes up the human sciences.

Objective metrics are no prerequisite for the existence of differences in quality. William Shakespeare is a better poet than William McGonagall. You can not take your yardstick to prove it, but you can analyze the intellectual potency of their writing, the depth of thought present in a work.


----------



## fritzmartinbass

I studied with a composer named Larry Austin for seven years. He was taught by John Cage. After I finished a piece, he would always say "do you like it?" He would then say, "that is ALL that matters." This of coarse, pertains to non-commercial music that you are not trying to sell. Most composers, in my opinion, try to over intellectualize music. You are obviously very talented. Just take what you need from the critics and leave the rest behind. Remember, to be criticized by a fool, is the highest compliment one can receive.
On the discussion of realism with midi mockups or whatever, I personally don't care if sounds "real." I actually like that the fact that synthesis does not sound real. This is why I was so intrigued with synthesis starting in the 70's. I would always say that I like it because it sounds "unreal." I know people here will disagree with this, but it is what it is. If we were all the same, the world would be quite boring.


----------



## Parsifal666

fritzmartinbass said:


> I studied with a composer named Larry Austin for seven years. He was taught by John Cage. After I finished a piece, he would always say "do you like it?" He would then say, "that is ALL that matters." This of coarse, pertains to non-commercial music that you are not trying to sell. You are obviously very talented. Just take what you need from the critics and leave the rest behind. Remember, to be criticized by a fool, is the highest compliment one can receive.



Great points and off topic, you studied with a composer who was mentored by John Cage? I would call you extremely fortunate.


----------



## Parsifal666

Listen to Beethoven's 9th. Listen to Hootie and the Blowfish. There are, arguably, certain standards.

Please know that I'm simply taking a position here (though I count it as the equivalent of a miracle, I don't even count the 9th as LvB's masterpiece, I nominate the late string quartets for that designation).


----------



## fritzmartinbass

Parsifal666 said:


> I don't even count the 9th as LvB's masterpiece, I nominate the late string quartets for that designation).


 Yes, me too! My double bass teacher always complained about the 9th, claimed it was poorly written. But, the late string quartets with all of that beautiful fugal writing are among my favorite music of all time.


----------



## Parsifal666

fritzmartinbass said:


> Yes, me too! My double bass teacher always complained about the 9th, claimed it was poorly written. But, the late string quartets with all of that beautiful fugal writing are among my favorite music of all time.



Then your double bass teacher is either having you on as a joke, jealous, or basically a very silly person. The 9th is an example of bulletproof music, it isn't going away...for great reason.

The late string quartets...I've studied and grown with them all my life. They were dismissed by some upon publication as being the mad rantings of a deaf composers, but his deafness seemed to make them even more personal. At times I've felt I was in this little room with Beethoven telling me these things about himself, his life, and music. His musical autobiography.


----------



## fritzmartinbass

Parsifal666 said:


> Then your double bass teacher is either having you on as a joke, jealous, or basically a very silly person. The 9th is an example of bulletproof music, it isn't going away...for great reason.


Perhaps, but it does have some very awkward passages for bass and choir. Obviously it is a masterpiece, just not my favorite Beethoven.
I do love the Scherzo though.


----------



## Parsifal666

fritzmartinbass said:


> Perhaps, but it does have some very awkward passages for bass and choir. Obviously it is a masterpiece, just not my favorite Beethoven.
> I do love the Scherzo though.



As awkward as the passages might seem, it all completely works in the big picture. So much so that history has often referred to it as the greatest piece of music written (with ample ground imo).

Off topic, but I'll be completely honest here. I have practically worshipped the 9th, all my life, yet I still have trouble getting through the slow movement (and keep in mind, I'm one of those weirdos who LIVE for Beethoven's slow pieces, such as_* that*_ movement in the Hammerklavier).


----------



## fritzmartinbass

Parsifal666 said:


> Off topic, but I'll be completely honest here. I have practically worshipped the 9th,


Off topic again for a second, I have always loved the 3rd. Back to topic, we all hear things differently. That is why I have a tough time criticizing others works. Helping is one thing, ripping it up is another.


----------



## sherief83

fritzmartinbass said:


> Yes, me too! My double bass teacher always complained about the 9th, claimed it was poorly written. But, the late string quartets with all of that beautiful fugal writing are among my favorite music of all time.



Now that is unfair Critiquing of the 9th from your teacher and from anyone really. I mean the Man was Deaf and at the time, no one was writing like him in style or had any conception of music the way Beethoven conceived them. That Symphony alone Had people fight over it so much that it lead to the Romantic Era where everyone was doing their own substandard interpretation of it so they can be claimed the true follower and successor of Beethoven. 

Either way, Bringing up Beethoven reminded me of something for this thread's original title, of How I don't actually like to Critique Sometimes. Writing music from the Soul is always personal, spiritual and most likely came from ones life experience. Something not always considered in Critiquing of pieces which I feel should be considered but that is where the problem is, who am I to truly critique other's music when I just haven't walked in their shoe to understand where they come from on their choice of tonality,harmony and rhythm. 

Historian Musicologist would however claim that their have been musicians that wrote without injecting them selves in their work and they give Stravinsky as an example, but even Stravinsky's work just comes across as a spiritual life force experiencing things objectively rather than emotionally which in the end is still music based on life experiences and impressions.


----------



## Smikes77

Parsifal666 said:


> Listen to Beethoven's 9th. Listen to Hootie and the Blowfish. There are, arguably, certain standards.
> 
> Please know that I'm simply taking a position here (though I count it as the equivalent of a miracle, I don't even count the 9th as LvB's masterpiece, I nominate the late string quartets for that designation).



Well, I nominate that one that you wrote. What`s it called...?

Ah, that`s it...

"Baby"


----------



## fritzmartinbass

sherief83 said:


> I mean the Man was Deaf and at the time


Yeah, I think that was his point. I don't think he was saying he was a bad composer. lol
I thought it was a weird comment at the time. 
On a side note:
Go listen to "Beethoven vs Justin Beiber" on youtube for a laugh.


----------



## ZenFaced

robgb said:


> I can't tell you if it's any good. I can only tell you whether or not I like it.



Exactly. Its art and totally subjective. If you like it who cares about "rules". And why should you care what everyone else thinks (except for clients)


----------



## Deleted member 422019

muk said:


> That's very true, fortunately. But:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a non-sequitur, and very wrong in my opinion. (By the way, are you of the opinion that it is the same with literature (or any art), that's all just preference there as well?) If it was true the only thing that could be said about music would be either 'I like it', or 'I don't like it'. But music has to offer quite a bit more than just that. I think your statement is only true for the emotional component of music. After hearing the same piece of music, person A might say 'This touched me most deeply', whereas person B might say 'That was boring, I didn't feel anything'. Neither of them is wrong, because the emotional reaction is a personal thing. However, there is a very important intellectual component to music, and to all art, which you seem to be missing completely. It's that component that makes up the human sciences.
> 
> Objective metrics are no prerequisite for the existence of differences in quality. William Shakespeare is a better poet than William McGonagall. You can not take your yardstick to prove it, but you can analyze the intellectual potency of their writing, the depth of thought present in a work.



Not exactly. Often an exceptional artist is not recognized during their lifetime. Carl Nielsen, was relatively unknown until


muk said:


> That's very true, fortunately. But:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a non-sequitur, and very wrong in my opinion. (By the way, are you of the opinion that it is the same with literature (or any art), that's all just preference there as well?) If it was true the only thing that could be said about music would be either 'I like it', or 'I don't like it'. But music has to offer quite a bit more than just that. I think your statement is only true for the emotional component of music. After hearing the same piece of music, person A might say 'This touched me most deeply', whereas person B might say 'That was boring, I didn't feel anything'. Neither of them is wrong, because the emotional reaction is a personal thing. However, there is a very important intellectual component to music, and to all art, which you seem to be missing completely. It's that component that makes up the human sciences.
> 
> Objective metrics are no prerequisite for the existence of differences in quality. William Shakespeare is a better poet than William McGonagall. You can not take your yardstick to prove it, but you can analyze the intellectual potency of their writing, the depth of thought present in a work.



Yes and no. It's easy to pronounce Shakespeare's greatness because we have hundreds of years of distance to make that assessment. Often composers are not recognized while alive very much, even though the intellectual and artistic level of their music is superior. Bartok, Carl Nielsen and Charles Ives come to mind (Ives could not get his works performed but finally won a big prize when he was too old to care). Very few people outside of Denmark knew about Carl Nielsen's work until the San Francisco Symphony recorded all five of his symphonies. I would even venture to say that without a lot of historical distance, without the passing of many years after the composer is dead, and nobody (family, friends, publishers, etc.) have an interest in the composer's work, most judgements, assessments and pronouncements should be dismissed, or taken with a grain of salt. Human nature is very complex, and our opinions about the quality of an artist's work are not only entirely subjective, but also are driven by many unconscious motivations and biases, not to mention economic pressures and competition. That's why the passing of many decades or centuries is likely to produce a more objective assessment of a composer's work, if that composer is remembered at all.


----------



## Rodney Money

jsg said:


> Not exactly. Often an exceptional artist is not recognized during their lifetime. Carl Nielsen, was relatively unknown until
> 
> 
> Yes and no. It's easy to pronounce Shakespeare's greatness because we have hundreds of years of distance to make that assessment. Often composers are not recognized while alive very much, even though the intellectual and artistic level of their music is superior. Bartok, Carl Nielsen and Charles Ives come to mind (Ives could not get his works performed but finally won a big prize when he was too old to care). Very few people outside of Denmark knew about Carl Nielsen's work until the San Francisco Symphony recorded all five of his symphonies. I would even venture to say that without a lot of historical distance, without the passing of many years after the composer is dead, and nobody (family, friends, publishers, etc.) have an interest in the composer's work, most judgements, assessments and pronouncements should be dismissed, or taken with a grain of salt. Human nature is very complex, and our opinions about the quality of an artist's work are not only entirely subjective, but also are driven by many unconscious motivations and biases, not to mention economic pressures and competition. That's why the passing of many decades or centuries is likely to produce a more objective assessment of a composer's work, if that composer is remembered at all.


What is your goal for your compositions, my friend? Do you want them to be performed live or live in your own recordings?


----------



## afterlight82

muk said:


> That's a non-sequitur, and very wrong in my opinion.



No, it isn't. A non sequitur is when something doesn't follow. The absence of an objective standard of quality means that all standards must be subjective i.e. perspectives, feelings, beliefs, desires. It's an either-or - the statement "X is better than Y" must be grounded either in an objective metric or a subjective one. Even pseudo-objective "This piece of music is better written because of the form" doesn't cut it, because that does not necessarily make it "better". That is still a statement of preference - "My emotional response to this piece is stronger because the form pleases me". 



muk said:


> (By the way, are you of the opinion that it is the same with literature (or any art), that's all just preference there as well?)



Yes.



muk said:


> If it was true the only thing that could be said about music would be either 'I like it', or 'I don't like it'.



No - that's arguing that subjective opinions aren't relevant or correct, which is not what I'm saying.



muk said:


> After hearing the same piece of music, person A might say 'This touched me most deeply', whereas person B might say 'That was boring, I didn't feel anything'. Neither of them is wrong, because the emotional reaction is a personal thing.



Correct.



muk said:


> However, there is a very important intellectual component to music, and to all art, which you seem to be missing completely. It's that component that makes up the human sciences.



Which is not a measure of quality.



muk said:


> Objective metrics are no prerequisite for the existence of differences in quality.



They are no prerequisite for subjective opinions on quality. Is a symphony inherently of greater quality than a pop song? Is classical music inherently "better" than pop music?



muk said:


> William Shakespeare is a better poet than William McGonagall.



By what objective standard? (I agree with you, obviously, but that's subjective).



muk said:


> You can not take your yardstick to prove it



Exactly.



muk said:


> but you can analyze the intellectual potency of their writing, the depth of thought present in a work.



Which is subjective in terms of "better". What is "the depth of thought"? Did Cage's 4'33" have less thought put it into than Beethoven's 9th? Or Beethoven 9 vs Webern's six incredibly sparse piano pieces?One cannot objectively know. And what necessarily makes that "better"? Length and density is not necessarily a measure of quality or thought that went into it.

I might seem like I'm being a notch flippant but I'm serious - this isn't to say that I don't think some music is better than others, but all of the things we composers use as measures of quality are, ultimately, subjective in terms of their emotional effect. If you agree the quality of art cannot be measured objectively, then subjective measures - call them opinions, preferences, whatever - are all that is left. That doesn't mean they are wrong, or irrelevant, or that popular consensus cannot arise over time, or that I think Kanye is the equal of Beethoven. I just cannot reasonably say that something who thinks the opposite is _objectively_ wrong.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Rodney Money said:


> What is your goal for your compositions, my friend? Do you want them to be performed live or live in your own recordings?



I would think you know the answer to that question. You've read many of my posts and know that I work in the virtual medium and am happy that I do. I've made it clear, and you have stated it yourself, that I consider the virtual orchestra a powerful musical medium in its own right, not necessarily a mockup for another medium. I have to admit I have some doubts as to the sincerity of the question.


----------



## Rodney Money

jsg said:


> You've already answere
> 
> 
> I would think you know the answer to that question. You've read many of my posts and know that I work in the virtual medium and am happy that I do. I've made it clear, and you have stated it yourself, that I consider the virtual orchestra a powerful musical medium in its own right, not necessarily a mockup for another medium. I have to admit I have some doubts as to the sincerity of the question.


I view everyone that I meet as a friend, and if I don't know something about them I ask because I care about them.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

[QUOTE="What is "the depth of thought"? Did Cage's 4'33" have less thought put it into than Beethoven's 9th?]/QUOTE]

Yes.


----------



## afterlight82

jsg said:


> Yes.



You can't know that. Sorry. You can assume it, infer it, choose to think that, whatever you want...but you can't know it, because it's not objective fact. Think of it this way...you say - yes - but on _what_ grounds? Length? Note density? What are your grounds for that answer?


----------



## JohnG

afterlight82 said:


> What are your grounds for that answer?



Duh.


----------



## afterlight82

(This is an extreme example, and seems almost silly - how could anybody possibly argue that 4'33 is objectively on equal grounds to Beethoven's 9th???...*but* if you really pick apart your thought processes to reaching that conclusion, I absolutely bet you cannot find a single ground that is not purely subjective, no matter how objective it might seem on the surface).


----------



## afterlight82

JohnG said:


> Duh.



OK! So fire away. What's your _objective_ grounds for the superiority of Beethoven's 9th or the thought processes involved?

Remember, _subjectively_, I agree with you, but that's not what's being claimed. Anybody who'd like to claim there is a measure of musical quality that is objective - that is, not preference based, but rather separate to our personal opinions, tastes, likes, appreciation and so on - has to be able to answer that question. And you have to be able to make it work for the most extreme example, which this pretty much is.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

afterlight82 said:


> You can't know that. Sorry. You can assume it, infer it, choose to think that, whatever you want...but you can't know it, because it's not objective fact. Think of it this way...you say - yes - but on _what_ grounds? Length? Note density? What are your grounds for that answer?



Cage wrote some fine works for acoustic instruments, I wish he had stayed in that direction although Schoenberg told him to give up music because he had no ear for harmony. 4'33" is a gimmick, a cute and humorous attempt to teach people the value of silence, which I think is valid. I 've been practicing daily meditation for 45 years and if a composer asked me what is the best way to deepen and expand expression in their music I would say take up meditation. If you don't learn the value of silence your notes are not going to mean as much. But aside from that value, as a work of art there's no comparison in my opinion because the depth of imagination, technique, thought and complexity of Beethoven's symphonies, as both sound and idea, cannot be compared to a work such as 4'33. Different purposes entirely. Cage was reacting to the stilted and formalized approach to the classical concert hall, perhaps making fun of it. Both Cage and Beethoven had something to say, but Beethoven said it in notes, Cage's creativity went into an entirely different direction. If I want to listen to music I might listen to Beethoven's 9th symphony, but if I want to listen to silence, I go into meditation and listen to my own silence, there is so much to be gained from meditation I wonder why more composers don't practice it. Though the physical world is real, I am convinced the inner life of a human being contains more reality than does the outer world and the world of the senses.


----------



## Jaap

edit: nevermind


----------



## Smikes77

ZenFaced said:


> I guess this makes 8. I really appreciate you and Parsif keeping tabs of how many posts I make. Kindly keep me updated. P.S. I was wondering do I get a prize once I get to 10 posts??



You are very welcome 

And you most certainly DO get rewarded. You get trophies!

Oh, and you get them for "likes" aswell.


----------



## afterlight82

jsg said:


> as a work of art there's no comparison in my opinion because the depth of imagination



Subjective.



jsg said:


> technique



The qualitative effect of which is subjective (otherwise one can argue things like the sonata form is aesthetically superior to the symphony, or the string quartet the wind quintet, or the sonnet vs the haiku, or the chalemeau range of the clarinet vs the altissimo)



jsg said:


> thought



Again, subjectively perceived, and greater _quantity_ of thought does not equal greater quality, necessarily, otherwise length would be an objective measure of the quality of a piece of music, which it's clearly not.



jsg said:


> and complexity



Again, subjective - how do you measure complexity, and why does more complex necessarily equal _better_?

It's utterly infuriating to us as musicians to think that something that seems so _obvious_ - why one piece of music from the revered history of music is "better" than another to us - is not rooted _solely_ in opinion....but there it is. Press any musician on such an issue and the answer is always the same...they'll say things like "the technique is "better"", "the form is "better"" and so on...but if you accept that you have to logically accept that there can be no argument against things that are patently absurd - like sonatas being _de facto _artistically superior to pop songs. But really, the point of work like 4'33 and the surprising number of predecessors in the silent work department is that these things are almost entirely rooted socially - the question of originality really being moot, since we are infused with the music we are exposed to daily. That's partly why Cage was so interested in chance, not just for the aleatoric nature of it yielding interesting results, but because there is an inherent barrier created by both creator, performer, and audience. For our part as musicians, it's the "let's pretend there's an objective musical standard of composition".


----------



## afterlight82

jsg said:


> 4'33" is a gimmick, a cute and humorous attempt to teach people the value of silence, which I think is valid.



Incorrect; it wasn't a joke. Cage himself - "I didn't wish it to appear, even to me, as something easy to do or as a joke. I wanted to mean it utterly and be able to live with it."


----------



## afterlight82

Therein lies the rub...in music classes you'll hear it referred to as such...oh, Cage was joking. It's silly stuff. No...Cage wasn't strictly a Dadaist...although it's often thought as an extension of this (eg. "neo-dadaism", usually used as a perjorative) but it really wasn't:

_"Critics frequently cry, “Dada,” after attending one of my concerts or hearing a lecture. Others bemoan the interest in Zen. One of the liveliest lectures I ever heard was given by Nancy Wilson Ross about 1937 at the Cornish School in Seattle. It was called Zen Buddhism and Dada. There is a connection possible between the two, but neither Dada nor Zen are fixed tangibles. They change; and in quite different ways in different places and times, they invigorate actions. What was Dada in the twenties is now, with the exception of the work of Marcel Duchamp, just art. What I do, I do not wish blamed on Zen, though without my engagement with Zen (attendance at lectures by Alan Watts, D. T. Suzuki, reading of the literature) I doubt whether I would have done what I have. Recently, I am told, Alan Watts has questioned the relation between my work and Zen. I mention this in order to free Zen from any responsibility for my actions. I shall continue making them, however."_


----------



## Dave Connor

fritzmartinbass said:


> Yes, me too! My double bass teacher always complained about the 9th, claimed it was poorly written...


 Hardly. That's a symphony that made some of the best composers that ever lived want to put down their pens. The consensus among great composers is that perhaps the last movement is flawed (you know the one: the one with some of the greatest music ever written.) The first three movements are considered perfect, towering achievements in composition still unapproached today.)


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Sebastianmu said:


> I find it astonishing how someone can be so demanding in regard to other people's conduct, and at the same time so absolutely careless about his own behaviour!



Oh really? Is that why "re-peat


afterlight82 said:


> Subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> The qualitative effect of which is subjective (otherwise one can argue things like the sonata form is aesthetically superior to the symphony, or the string quartet the wind quintet, or the sonnet vs the haiku, or the chalemeau range of the clarinet vs the altissimo)
> 
> 
> 
> Again, subjectively perceived, and greater _quantity_ of thought does not equal greater quality, necessarily, otherwise length would be an objective measure of the quality of a piece of music, which it's clearly not.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, subjective - how do you measure complexity, and why does more complex necessarily equal _better_?
> 
> It's utterly infuriating to us as musicians to think that something that seems so _obvious_ - why one piece of music from the revered history of music is "better" than another to us - is not rooted _solely_ in opinion....but there it is. Press any musician on such an issue and the answer is always the same...they'll say things like "the technique is "better"", "the form is "better"" and so on...but if you accept that you have to logically accept that there can be no argument against things that are patently absurd - like sonatas being _de facto _artistically superior to pop songs. But really, the point of work like 4'33 and the surprising number of predecessors in the silent work department is that these things are almost entirely rooted socially - the question of originality really being moot, since we are infused with the music we are exposed to daily. That's partly why Cage was so interested in chance, not just for the aleatoric nature of it yielding interesting results, but because there is an inherent barrier created by both creator, performer, and audience. For our part as musicians, it's the "let's pretend there's an objective musical standard of composition".




Subjectivity is impossible to avoid in the arts. Science tries its best to avoid it because the physical world works the way it does, regardless of how humans want it to work. But artistic reactions are, and always will be, entirely subjective. _The subjective expresses a different level of reality, the reality of personal experience. _Human values are not based on the physical laws of nature, they are based on human personality. If the subjective experience of life were not real, we wouldn't be human beings, we'd be robots.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

afterlight82 said:


> Incorrect; it wasn't a joke. Cage himself - "I didn't wish it to appear, even to me, as something easy to do or as a joke. I wanted to mean it utterly and be able to live with it."



Perhaps he didn't mean it as a joke, but when I heard it in the concert hall a long time ago, I had to really restrain myself because I was beginning to laugh quite vigorously. Perhaps because of my experience in meditation, I found it very funny to use the concert hall as a vehicle for inducing silence. Once again, it shows to me that composers THINK they are expressing one thing, but the listener hears something entirely different.


----------



## Andrew_m

I often find it useful to get a non-musician's perspective. Their opinions are valid in ways, considering they're your largest demographic. Some of their criticisms may be more opinionated than objective, which is understandable - but their opinion is based solely off how the music 'sounds' - ignoring any technical detail, which can be a very useful insight.


----------



## Jaap

Edit: nevermind movement number 2 

(realised that aleatoric commenting is soooo 2016!)

And to edit the edit and add:


----------



## afterlight82

jsg said:


> Subjectivity is impossible to avoid in the arts. Science tries its best to avoid it because the physical world works the way it does, regardless of how humans want it to work. But artistic reactions are, and always will be, entirely subjective. _The subjective expresses a different level of reality, the reality of personal experience. _Human values are not based on the physical laws of nature, they are based on human personality. If the subjective experience of life were not real, we wouldn't be human beings, we'd be robots.



Well, planes of reality is a whole other thought entirely, but to the substance there, I agree - and ergo, there _is _no objective standard of musical criticism - there simply cannot be; and the statement that "X is a better piece of music than Y" is _meaningless_ without the often-omitted words "_I think_" in front it. That's not to say that "I think" has no value - quite the opposite, it's an expression of what is important about being alive. Just that the ivory tower of "this is better than that" is on the shaky foundations that it always was, based as it is entirely in social and experiential context. 

(For example - lots of people have at one time or another said they like certain pieces of music in certain situations because, well, frankly, they're trying to fit in, and they don't want to be perceived as out of the herd. That's actually entirely natural...and not necessarily bad! It's in our nature.)


----------



## Deleted member 422019

This is mainly directed at all the 20-something year olds that think they know everything, but everyone might be able to appreciate what genuine music criticism is like, and what people call "feedback" is really just negative energy:

http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/should-composers-read-music-critics/


----------



## Sebastianmu

jsg said:


> Perhaps because of my experience in meditation


...maybe a good thing to meditate about for the next couple of months would be the term 'self-righteousness'.


----------



## Ashermusic

afterlight82 said:


> Incorrect; it wasn't a joke. Cage himself - "I didn't wish it to appear, even to me, as something easy to do or as a joke. I wanted to mean it utterly and be able to live with it."




And Cage is famous far more for his concepts than his actual music.


----------



## Ashermusic

Really good musicians generally know great music when they hear it, whether or not it is to their personal taste, in my lifelong experience. You bring up certain names and there generally is very little disagreement about the greatness, even if it is not music they like to listen to, and it is not because they are all sheep slavishly following what they are told.


----------



## Jaap

jsg said:


> This is mainly directed at all the 20-something year olds that think they know everything, but everyone might be able to appreciate what genuine music criticism is like, and what people call "feedback" is really just negative energy:
> 
> http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/should-composers-read-music-critics/



Wow... you really know how to play people emotions (and no, it's not your music) 

I only use this in high emergency situations, but this feels like one and I think we need Bob!


----------



## Ashermusic

Well, what is factual to say is that 20 year olds are only recently out of High School


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Sebastianmu said:


> ...maybe a good thing to meditate about for the next couple of months would be the term 'self-righteousness'.



Do people who have healthy self-esteem and appropriate self-respect qualify as self-righteous? Perhaps people who have these qualities are a threat to people who do not. That's been my experience. You're the one judging me! I've blocked your posts from my eyes, I suggest you do the same..


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Ashermusic said:


> Really good musicians generally know great music when they hear it, whether or not it is to their personal taste, in my lifelong experience. You bring up certain names and there generally is very little disagreement about the greatness, even if it is not music they like to listen to, and it is not because they are all sheep slavishly following what they are told.



This is true. I do not like to listen to Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra but I recognize the incredible detail and expression in the piece. Harmonically, it just doesn't do it for me, but it's a solid piece of music.


----------



## ghostnote

Is this silly thread still a thing?

Most of us know what this section is about: Not to get to know what we do wrong, but what we do right.

It's a small but significant difference. We as composers need to be our biggest critiques. Asking for feedback here is almost always an invite for 1.) a chat and then 2.) A bit of feedback if needed.

Nevertheless there are people around who take things way to serious and even if they take your pieces apart, show some class and stand above it for gods sake.


----------



## Dave Connor

The argument that _everything _in the perception of and measurement of quality in music is subjective is a declaration that there are no objective scientific properties in composition. Preference or taste is apart from these properties so one may prefer Yanni's music to Mozart but there is no comparison in the measurable qualities contained within. If that weren't true, no one would have ever had to study, form or counterpoint or four-part writing or modulation or any of these things that are graded as to quality by those that teach the science of composition. In Mozart's 41st Symphony you have a display of total command in understanding and execution of these musical principles and properties objectively. You may say, _It is written well but I don't like it_, but you cannot say, _it is poorly written_. Objectively that is simply not so. You can also say, _Yanni is no Mozart but I prefer his music. _One has an overwhelming understanding of the scientific properties and one doesn't. The scientific components in composition and orchestration have much to do with the science of acoustics (I'm leaving out the intangible of the creative spark) which is measurable in the sense that a piece may be orchestrated well or poorly. On and on it goes with many other objective properties.

In the end the argument that, _Everything is subjective _is itself far too subjective, particularly when applied to the sciences. And music, in far too many ways is scientific.


----------



## Ashermusic

Exactly, Dave, exactly.


----------



## dcoscina

Dave Connor said:


> The argument that _everything _in the perception of and measurement of quality in music is subjective is a declaration that there are no objective scientific properties in composition. Preference or taste is apart from these properties so one may prefer Yanni's music to Mozart but there is no comparison in the measurable qualities contained within. If that weren't true, no one would have ever had to study, form or counterpoint or four-part writing or modulation or any of these things that are graded as to quality by those that teach the science of composition. In Mozart's 41st Symphony you have a display of total command in understanding and execution of these musical principles and properties objectively. You may say, _It is written well but I don't like it_, but you cannot say, _it is poorly written_. Objectively that is simply not so. You can also say, _Yanni is no Mozart but I prefer his music. _One has an overwhelming understanding of the scientific properties and one doesn't. The scientific components in composition and orchestration have much to do with the science of acoustics (I'm leaving out the intangible of the creative spark) which is measurable in the sense that a piece may be orchestrated well or poorly. On and on it goes with many other objective properties.
> 
> In the end the argument that, _Everything is subjective _is itself far too subjective, particularly when applied to the sciences. And music, in far too many ways is scientific.


Dave this is the most salient rational explanation of music. Thank you for so eloquently posting this.


----------



## Sebastianmu

Dave Connor said:


> You may say, _It is written well but I don't like it_, but you cannot say, _it is poorly written_.


That, unfortunately, is circular reasoning. You are assuming that 'well' written means 'written in accordance with the rules of counterpoint [or four-part writing or modulation or any of these things]'. But this (normative) assumption is subjective, one could argue. (With the same right, one could claim 'well' written means 'written according to the rules of strict twelve-tone composition', and then Mozart's Symphony would, infact, be a poorly written piece. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm only saying identifying 'well written' with the one set of rules, is as arbitrary as identifying it with the other.)
In philosophy, there is a very well known concept called "Hume's law". It states that no normative proposition can be derived from any set of merely descriptive propositions. One always has to invest at least one normative premise in order to arrive at valid normative conclusions. (A related concept is 'Moore's law' - the meaning of 'good' can not be reduced to the meaning of any other word or proposition [for instance: "according to the set of rules Q"].)
In academic philosophy, there is a very widely held opinion that because of Moore's law (and some other things), we cannot establish an ultimate rational justification of _ethics_. I think the same is true for aesthetics (which are, in a way, the _ethics of art_.) We have no way of objectively justifying the normative premises we invest in our aesthetic judgments; and all I came across so far (and I have talked about this very problem with a great many people, artists, critics, musicians, musicologists, philosophers), are rationalizations of taste-preferences that the one or the other incidentally holds (- and the more refined these rationalizations are, the more fiercely they are being defended against logical criticism.)


----------



## Karma

jsg said:


> This is mainly directed at all the 20-something year olds that think they know everything, but everyone might be able to appreciate what genuine music criticism is like, and what people call "feedback" is really just negative energy:
> 
> http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/should-composers-read-music-critics/


There is a simple solution - if you've got some feedback you don't agree with: ignore it. Who says you have to take it onboard? And more importantly... Don't make personal attacks aimed at those who've taken the time out to listen.

In regards to some of your other comments - please stop being so condescending, age does not put you above anyone.


----------



## Dave Connor

Sebastianmu said:


> That, unfortunately, is circular reasoning. You are assuming that 'well' written means 'written in accordance with the rules of counterpoint [or four-part writing or modulation or any of these things]'. But this (normative) assumption is subjective, one could argue


Of course there are certain assumptions and parameters in virtually the discussion of _anything _in order to limit the scope of the subject matter. My point is that one can stand in their living room when it's raining outside and the roof is leaking everywhere and declare, _I think the guy that built this roof did a terrific job. _When in fact he did not. Whether through education or instinct or whatever reason or logic was employed, the builder failed in the quality of his construct… utterly and measurably. One can say music is void of the principles of construction (against a few thousand years of history) but then one can say _anything_ about _anything a_nd chose_ Subjectivity _as some sort of supreme philosophical position.

Yes there are measurable criteria and determined limitations in the practice of or examination of any area of specialized knowledge such as Western Composition throughout it's history (and it's branches such as 12 tone writing.) All have objective measurable properties same as other constructs such as houses and roofs. All have scientific properties _along with _the more subjective properties. They are not mutually exclusive (i.e. subjectivity does not negate ALL the inherent objective properties found in an area of knowledge.) Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and your local piano teacher have been proving otherwise for centuries.


----------



## Ashermusic

When I was twenty, I knew _everything_.
When I was thirty, I realized how much I still had to learn.
When I was forty, I decided I knew _nothing_, really.
When I was fifty, I realized that I know what I know and what I do not know, and that for the latter, I was best off keeping my opinions to myself, unless directly asked, and even then, I answered with the disclaimer that I did not really know.

Now at 68, I am kind of getting back to what I decided at forty


----------



## Sebastianmu

Dave Connor said:


> Of course there are certain assumptions and parameters in virtually the discussion of _anything _in order to limit the scope of the subject matter. My point is that one can stand in their living room when it's raining outside and the roof is leaking everywhere and declare, _I think the guy that built this roof did a terrific job. _When in fact he did not. Whether through education or instinct or whatever reason or logic was employed, the builder failed in the quality of his construct… utterly and measurably. One can say music is void of the principles of construction (against a few thousand years of history) but then one can say _anything_ about _anything a_nd chose_ Subjectivity _as some sort of supreme philosophical position.
> 
> Yes there are criteria and limitations in the practice of or examination of any area of specialized knowledge such Western composition throughout it's history (and it's branches such as 12 tone writing.) All have objective measurable properties same as other constructs such as houses and roofs. All have scientific properties _along with the more subjective_


A tool is a fairly easy thing to assess. "Does it serve it's purpose?" is usually easy to answer. But a piece of music does not have a purpose in that way. (Unless you'd say, what you are probably not prone to do, it's purpose is some sort of _emotional impact_. That can obviously be assessed quite easily and objectively, even if it might differ for every individual listening to the piece.)

Also, "It rains, and therefore, the floor is wet." is not-so-super-worthy of discussion. Similar to: "Mozart's Xth Symphony exemplifies perfect use of contrapuntual/voice leading/what-ever kind of rules."

What I was trying to say is: Stating that a piece of music has certain properties, is (if someone is trained) quite possible in a somewhat 'objective' fashion. Where it turns into something subjective (or at least not sufficiently justified) is, when a piece of music is deemed 'good' because it possess certain properties.

I think we are actually not super far away from each other, Dave.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Who's a better pianist: me or Yefim Bronfman?

BRONFMAN?!!! F you and your entire family! Just because he's better in every measurable way and I'm a piano-as-tool player doesn't mean anything.

Can Bronfman fix mistakes in a computer as well as I can?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Mic drop.

See? I win.


----------



## Dave Connor

I'm sure we are not far away on this Sebastian : ) It seems to me that the removal of all objective properties in music by a sweeping declaration that every molecule is subjective is a spurious proposition in search of an opponent for reasons more subjective than objective. The successful practice of those objective laws in music is itself proof of their existence and validity. Given the universe we live in, which teams with objective truths, it seems unscientific to say they somehow vanish in a given area of knowledge.

I am not arguing against subjectivity in music: it is one of the glories of it. I am just not questioning that other great glory: objective, measurable properties found in it.


----------



## Sebastianmu

I think very few people (if any) would argue that every aspect of music is subjective, and it doesn't seem to be a position worth discussing. I do think, however, quite a lot of people who care to talk about this stuff would say, aesthetic judgments are ultimately subjective. And your point was: "yes, but technical mastery is not subjective", which I would agree with. But technical mastery is ultimately something different than aesthetic value. Technically, I don't think Bacon is as great a painter as - let's say - Frederic Leighton was. But I think many (if not all) of Bacon's paintings are of greater aesthetic value. At the same time, I hold this to be an ultimately subjective opinion.


----------



## fritzmartinbass

Dave Connor said:


> In the end the argument that, _Everything is subjective _is itself far too subjective, particularly when applied to the sciences. And music, in far too many ways is scientific.


To each his own, I guess. Is music an art or a craft? Probably both. Am I scientific when I improvise, probably not. Did Beethoven see the beauty in a simple folk melody? Yes. Once, Joe Zawinul said he could do anything Beethoven could do. Well, who am I to question his greatness.
Anyway, I am a musician for spiritual reasons. I see music as much more than a scientific formula. Yes, I had to learn the scientific part, but now that I have a grasp of it, I can just write what I hear in my head and not mentalize everything to death. I most likely feel like this is due to my Jazz background and being an improviser. As a music teacher, I see many kids that are quite gifted musically. I don't believe that is scientific. They were born with it.


----------



## Dave Connor

fritzmartinbass said:


> I see music as much more than a scientific formula.


As do we all I imagine. I was focusing on the objective elements since some seem to suggest that music and/or the response to it is entirely subjective. I was discussing the scientific aspects of the whole of music, not defining the whole of it as pure objective science.


----------



## fritzmartinbass

Dave Connor said:


> As do we all I imagine. I was focusing on the objective elements since some seem to suggest that music and/or the response to it is entirely subjective. I was discussing the scientific aspects of the whole of music, not defining the whole of it as pure objective science.



You are absolutely right. There has to be some concrete basis for us all to agree upon. I'm a little touchy about this subject due to having run ins with professors in college that had lost sight in the beauty of music. Everything was analyzed and compartmentalized. I had a department chair in theory tell me that no great composers improvised. Well, that set me off. I actually told her that she believed that because she couldn't write worth a crap. We did become friends later. lol


----------



## Dave Connor

Considering that three of the greatest improvisers that ever lived are Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, I can't fathom a comment like that.


----------



## douggibson

Jaap said:


> Edit: nevermind movement number 2
> 
> (realised that aleatoric commenting is soooo 2016!)
> 
> And to edit the edit and add:




That's my jam ! I need to clear my schedule, I can't stop dancing !


----------



## fritzmartinbass

Dave Connor said:


> Considering that three of the greatest improvisers that ever lived are Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, I can't fathom a comment like that.


I know right? Add Chopin, Liszt, Ravel, etc.


----------



## Farkle

fritzmartinbass said:


> You are absolutely right. There has to be some concrete basis for us all to agree upon. I'm a little touchy about this subject due to having run ins with professors in college that had lost sight in the beauty of music. Everything was analyzed and compartmentalized. I had a department chair in theory tell me that no great composers improvised. Well, that set me off. I actually told her that she believed that because she couldn't write worth a crap. We did become friends later. lol



No offense, but she's an idiot about how musical composition works. Which is why (in my opinion), you don't have a theorist teach you how to compose. (another thread, I'm sure).

Oh, and she's also an idiot about music history... makes me wonder how she got her gig. Beethoven's intro to his 5th Concerto was basically improvised. And those famous cadenzes by Mozart, Chopin, Beethoven? All improvised, and taken down at a later time.

Mike


----------



## Paul T McGraw

Ashermusic said:


> Now at 68, I am kind of getting back to what I decided at forty



Humility is a great virtue, and sadly not appreciated in our present culture. And true humility is so very darned hard to master. As soon as one thinks, aha, I have mastered this humility thing, then BLAM you just FAILED because you revealed that you are not really humble if you take pride in your humility. 

Richard Strauss, one of my favorite composers, famously said: "I may not be a first-rate composer, but I am a first-class second-rate composer."


----------



## douggibson

Yes, all the great composers of the past improvised. C.P.E Bach has a chapter on it in his book, and Czerny's first book was actually on improvisation. While one could debate these two as composers (I think they are very good) they both illustrate first hand knowledge of (in my opinion) the two greatest composers approaches to improvisation (Bach, and Beethoven). More and more scholars are publishing articles on this topic. It never went away in Organ pedagogy.

Lastly, one thing that opened my mind was learning that Schenkerian analysis was a tool to aid improvising in - his term - a structural way. The ideal in the classical era was that an improvisation should sound like a composition. Yes, they are two different processes, but it was much closer to listening a rhetorical master as an ideal. Of course this is why there was also more of a consensus of form. (ie. sonata, minuet etc.)


----------



## fritzmartinbass

Farkle said:


> No offense, but she's an idiot about how musical composition works. Which is why (in my opinion), you don't have a theorist teach you how to compose. (another thread, I'm sure).
> 
> Oh, and she's also an idiot about music history... makes me wonder how she got her gig. Beethoven's intro to his 5th Concerto was basically improvised. And those famous cadenzes by Mozart, Chopin, Beethoven? All improvised, and taken down at a later time.
> 
> Mike


Why would I be offended? She was a big deal in the theory circle too. PHD from UCLA, made us write a paper on feminism in 18th century counterpoint class. Go figure? Those were the days.


----------



## Mundano

I don't know why should one feels offended when asking for criticism? The best way to learn from ourselves is to be open to others' view. But i know the problem is to break our own image of our selves. Sometimes it tooks a lot of years...

@jsg i have just heard your Symphony #8, 2.d movement, and i congratulate you. What amount of work should you have invested in that piece. I like your musical narrative, that is something that a lot of composers doesn't have. Keep doing so, you are very skilled.


----------



## fritzmartinbass

Mundano said:


> I don't know why should one feels offended when asking for criticism?


 I believe most composers asking for feedback on their works are looking for praise, whether they admit it or not. Most would probably be open to constructive criticism. Saying it isn't my cup of tea is one thing, saying it sucks is another. IMO. Like saying your wife is a 2 on scale of 1-10. It is a very personal thing, as quoted earlier in this thread.


----------



## Parsifal666

> i have just heard your Symphony #8, 2.d movement, and i congratulate you. What amount of work should you have invested in that piece. I like your musical narrative, that is something that a lot of composers doesn't have. Keep doing so, you are very skilled.



I like *jsg*'s music too; one of the coolest things is how (forgive me if I'm wrong) jsg seems not as concerned as some here at vi-control about having a symphony orchestra play his music live. It seems to me he simply writes what he envisions, without undue concern about a live tour. 

Most of the time I myself write I can hear a symphony orchestra (as well as electric guitars and select synthesizers) playing my works live, but there are times I really don't care. There are times, especially after I gained more knowledge regarding synthesizer programming and production, when I think some of my compositions would not please me at all if performed by a large live ensemble. I'm happy with them as unperformable. But this is another thread, forgive me for being off topic.



fritzmartinbass said:


> I believe most composers asking for feedback on their works are looking for praise, whether they admit it or not. Most would probably be open to constructive criticism. Saying it isn't my cup of tea is one thing, saying it sucks is another. IMO. Like saying your wife is a 2 on scale of 1-10. It is a very personal thing, as quoted earlier in this thread.



Well....yes, but if I were stuck on an engineering aspect of a recording I would probably welcome negative feedback. You can't be too careful when it comes to self-editing your engineering in my humble opinion. Especially mastering, a process which (to this day) too often screams for a completely objective second party's opinion.


----------



## Parsifal666

To quote the Who: "I really wanna KNOW!"

http://vi-control.net/community/threads/so-what-do-you-think-of-this-piece.59848/


----------



## Farkle

fritzmartinbass said:


> Why would I be offended? She was a big deal in the theory circle too. PHD from UCLA, made us write a paper on feminism in 18th century counterpoint class. Go figure? Those were the days.



I didn't want to offend, because I just called one of your former professors an idiot. It's rare that I use "mean language", but I have also walked those "hallowed academic halls" of music, and the damage that those "teachers" can do to new composers with those types of ignorant statements is horrifying to me. It makes me quite upset, because I have seen (and been on the receiving end) of those types of, honestly, cruel and mean statements, that can crush a budding composer's spirits and confidence.

My personal horror story: I was in a PhD program for Music Composition at Duke University. When I defended my Master's in Composition (necessary to proceed to PhD). My three professors looked at me and said (quote), "We have real concerns about your ability as a composer."

(I was far and away the most prolific composer in the program, composing 2-3 min of music per week. Which is laughably slow now. ) 

I asked why they were concerned, and they said (and I quote):

_Your music has too much melody, too much harmony, and too strong a sense of rhythm.

....
_
I stared at them, then I packed my defense materials, and walked out of that meeting right then and there. 2 days later, I had written my termination letter, and left that program.

Not to derail, but sometimes, one has to look at who's giving the criticism. 3 bitter old men in N Carolina who write music for audiences of 8 (True number from their last concert) aren't qualified to give opinions on how I scramble my eggs, let alone how I write my music. 

Mike


----------



## Rodney Money

Farkle said:


> My personal horror story: I was in a PhD program for Music Composition at Duke University.


That alone sounds like a horror story.  I'm a North Carolina country boy, so I truly appreciated this.


----------



## fritzmartinbass

Farkle said:


> Your music has too much melody, too much harmony, and too strong a sense of rhythm.



Hey man, you'd better watch out when writing something melodic, with awesome harmony, and great rhythmic ideas. You're going to piss a lot of people off. lol


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Paul T McGraw said:


> Humility is a great virtue, and sadly not appreciated in our present culture. And true humility is so very darned hard to master. As soon as one thinks, aha, I have mastered this humility thing, then BLAM you just FAILED because you revealed that you are not really humble if you take pride in your humility.
> 
> Richard Strauss, one of my favorite composers, famously said: "I may not be a first-rate composer, but I am a first-class second-rate composer."



Absolutely! After practicing meditation for over 4 decades I can tell you that humility is hard, we humans are basically self-centered, bellicose creatures. When one sits quietly with no distractions, no eating, drinking, smoking, fidgeting, etc., all sorts of stuff arises from the subconscious mind. Negative emotions, conflicts, fears, they're all right there under the surface of consciousness. So why meditate if we have to go through all that? Because beneath (or above?) that "stuff" is cosmic consciousness, bliss, joy, peace, integration, love, happiness, and, with those things, humility. The courage to sit quietly with one's self is greater than physical courage in my opinion because it reveals stuff about personality and experience that most people spend their entire lives trying to avoid. One cannot make a conscious attempt to "be humble". That's impossible. Instead, humility arises spontaneously when the mind is quiet and receptivity to truth, beauty and goodness is is in full operating mode.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Mundano said:


> I don't know why should one feels offended when asking for criticism? The best way to learn from ourselves is to be open to others' view. But i know the problem is to break our own image of our selves. Sometimes it tooks a lot of years...
> 
> @jsg i have just heard your Symphony #8, 2.d movement, and i congratulate you. What amount of work should you have invested in that piece. I like your musical narrative, that is something that a lot of composers doesn't have. Keep doing so, you are very skilled.



Thanks!


----------



## Deleted member 422019

fritzmartinbass said:


> To each his own, I guess. Is music an art or a craft? Probably both. Am I scientific when I improvise, probably not. Did Beethoven see the beauty in a simple folk melody? Yes. Once, Joe Zawinul said he could do anything Beethoven could do. Well, who am I to question his greatness.
> Anyway, I am a musician for spiritual reasons. I see music as much more than a scientific formula. Yes, I had to learn the scientific part, but now that I have a grasp of it, I can just write what I hear in my head and not mentalize everything to death. I most likely feel like this is due to my Jazz background and being an improviser. As a music teacher, I see many kids that are quite gifted musically. I don't believe that is scientific. They were born with it.




You're on the right path fritzmartinbass! Music's highest function is to reveal snatches of the infinite, the eternal and the beauty of existence. I tend to believe there is only one music, or rather that the source of all music leads to one source, and each musician is trying to interpret that music according to their own personality, talent and cultural influences. Do you meditate? I highly recommend daily meditation, through meditation we gain self-knowledge, bliss and peace--but there is a price, which is facing one's bullshit. Learning the value of silence will most definitely improve your improvisations and well as your aesthetic sensitivity and evolution. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask me!


----------



## robgb

Parsifal666 said:


> Listen to Beethoven's 9th. Listen to Hootie and the Blowfish.


Apples and oranges. And still a matter of personal preference. While I can appreciate the mastery of the 9th on a technical/compositional level, it isn't my favorite Beethoven, nor is it my favorite piece.


----------



## robgb

I'd also add that the amount of work you put into composing and recording a piece is not a measure of its quality. Mozart was composing at five. I'm pretty sure it was an effortless endeavor for him.


----------



## Parsifal666

robgb said:


> Apples and oranges. And still a matter of personal preference. While I can appreciate the mastery of the 9th on a technical/compositional level, it isn't my favorite Beethoven, nor is it my favorite piece.



Hootie ain't Beethoven, Hootie is recycled Beatles (not to underscore the blowsomething's debt, it's shared by practically everyone in Pop today). Even the Beatles, as unquestionably great as they were, weren't Beethoven. No.

And here I take my leave, with all due respect. A Beethoven-worshipping Wagnerian am I.


----------



## robgb

Parsifal666 said:


> Even the Beatles, as unquestionably great as they were, weren't Beethoven. No.


Nor were they trying to be. I also doubt that Beethoven could have written the kind of amazing pop tunes The Beatles wrote (but of course we'll never know). Again, apples and oranges.


----------



## gregh

jsg said:


> You're on the right path fritzmartinbass! Music's highest function is to reveal snatches of the infinite, the eternal and the beauty of existence. I tend to believe there is only one music, or rather that the source of all music leads to one source, and each musician is trying to interpret that music according to their own personality, talent and cultural influences. Do you meditate? I highly recommend daily meditation, through meditation we gain self-knowledge, bliss and peace--but there is a price, which is facing one's bullshit. Learning the value of silence will most definitely improve your improvisations and well as your aesthetic sensitivity and evolution. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask me!


I am a big fan of meditation (and TaiChi) myself but I have not found the "facing one's bullshit" experience at all, although I have heard mention of it from others. For me it is the opposite, I find meditation reduces the power and frequency of negative thoughts enormously. Not wanting to deny your experience, just saying that other experiences of meditation are possible


----------



## fritzmartinbass

jsg said:


> You're on the right path fritzmartinbass! Music's highest function is to reveal snatches of the infinite, the eternal and the beauty of existence. I tend to believe there is only one music, or rather that the source of all music leads to one source, and each musician is trying to interpret that music according to their own personality, talent and cultural influences. Do you meditate? I highly recommend daily meditation, through meditation we gain self-knowledge, bliss and peace--but there is a price, which is facing one's bullshit. Learning the value of silence will most definitely improve your improvisations and well as your aesthetic sensitivity and evolution. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask me!



Ah, you found me out. Yes I do meditate. Your post is beautiful and I agree with every bit of it.
thank you!


----------



## ZenFaced

Farkle said:


> Which is why (in my opinion), you don't have a theorist teach you how to compose. (another thread, I'm sure).
> 
> Mike



Agreed. Music creation is spiritual, at least to me. However compare that to learning how to play an instrument. Learning an instrument is different and I think having a good teacher for that is essential.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

gregh said:


> I am a big fan of meditation (and TaiChi) myself but I have not found the "facing one's bullshit" experience at all, although I have heard mention of it from others. For me it is the opposite, I find meditation reduces the power and frequency of negative thoughts enormously. Not wanting to deny your experience, just saying that other experiences of meditation are possible



You're correct, meditation *is* many things. Sometimes it is emptiness, tuning into the "space between the thoughts". Sometimes it is pure bliss, a sense of peace that "passeth all understanding". Sometimes it is prayer, worship or a state of simple gratitude for being able to love and be loved. And sometimes it means experiencing feelings and conflicts that the conscious mind wishes to avoid. Some people call it "self-confrontation". It doesn't mean self-hatred or self-rejection, but rather the receptivity and capacity to acknowledge and accept how imperfect our mind and personality really is. I've read many books on meditation as well, and the idea of self-confrontation often comes up. If your pursuit of truth, beauty and goodness is wholly sincere, you have to sometimes experience the untruth, ugliness and unrighteousness of one's own mind/heart and the not-so-enlightened motives that most humans have sometimes. It's called the "dark night of the soul" and every meditator, if they spend enough time in meditation will sooner or later experience some variation of it.

How long have you been practicing meditation? That might have something to do with it. On the other hand maybe you're that rare, truly enlightened being who is never troubled by your own reactions, attitudes, values and sense of who you are and how your interpersonal relationships are working. People are very different as to how they cope with the brevity, uncertainty and suffering of existence, which is why meditation, at least for me, is experienced in so many different ways. Since meditation is certainly no substitute for good diet, exercise and human companionship, and cannot replace those things, if any area of life is amiss, it will impact meditation considerably. Try meditating after eating a large pizza or spicy food! ;>) No, don't, really, don't...


----------



## gregh

My point is more that I have not noticed "self-confrontation" being particularly linked to meditation as against occurring during the normal course of life. Quite the opposite as implied above. I am also a complete materialist and do not associate meditation, or anything at all really, with spiritual experience. I am not even sure what people mean by a spiritual experience that needs its own explanation outside of the mechanisms of normal experience. There are many people, many ways.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

gregh said:


> My point is more that I have not noticed "self-confrontation" being particularly linked to meditation as against occurring during the normal course of life. Quite the opposite as implied above. I am also a complete materialist and do not associate meditation, or anything at all really, with spiritual experience. I am not even sure what people mean by a spiritual experience that needs its own explanation outside of the mechanisms of normal experience. There are many people, many ways.



I am the opposite, an anti-materialist. What exactly does this mean? I believe that consciousness not only permeates the cosmos, but that consciousness created the universe and matter, though it _appears_ through biological evolution (which of course is real) that the opposite is true. It's not that the physical world isn't real, of course it is, but the inner life of human beings is more real. If I ask you to point to your chest, or your knee, you can do that easily. But what if I ask you to point to your values, your personality, your motivations, where would you point to? These things are _experientially_ real: you know you have a personality, values and motivations but they do not exist in the physical world. Where does the meaning in a Mozart symphony exist? Certainly not in the physical world.

A materialist is a reductionist, he will reduce personality, values and motivations to atoms, molecules, neurons. That's where I part company with science, which is making incredible advances in understanding the brain, but knows little about the mind. Spirituality is the recognition that there are non-physical causes to the natural world, a crude analogy is dark matter and dark energy, which emit or absorb no radiation, yet have an influence on matter and energy that does emit and absorb radiation. But that is not sufficient because spirituality is really about kindness, patience, fairness and justice. It's about love of truth, love of righteousness and love of beauty. It transcends the physical world, the material world. It's about the quality of relationships between sentient beings. An atheist can be as spiritually motivated as a theist. It's about intention, motivation and the will to grow, evolve and change. Jesus said it simply, Love they neighbor as thy self. Very easy to say, very hard to do.

One materialist once wrote that biologic evolution has no direction. No direction? Really? From one-celled amoeba, to fish, to reptiles and mammals, to primates, to human beings? I see a definite direction toward increasing intelligence, increasing self-awareness and increasing capacity to use language, tools, technology and culture. Spirituality, in my definition, is the recognition that the universe is friendly, progressive and evolutionary and that space-time, matter and energy are not the whole story.


----------



## muk

robgb said:


> Mozart was composing at five. I'm pretty sure it was an effortless endeavor for him.



It wasn't. The imagery of the genius composing whole symphonies in his head without breaking sweat is a persistent one. Milos Foreman's 'Amadeus' (an excellent movie, though not exactly historically accurate) shows this narrative most famously. It is, however, far from the truth. As Mozart himself wrote in the dedication of the 'Haydn-Quartets': they are the 'Frutto di una lunga e laboriosa fatica'.
In the last few decades manuscript sketches surfaced, and they show the hard work Mozart put into his compositions. They are far from the impeccable, clean writings that the 'genius-narrative' would have you believe. Mozart didn't sketch as extensively as Beethoven did. But he did sketch non the less, and those sketches are very messy at times. While it is true that Mozart could compose quickly, he did struggle with it, and his composing was far from effortlessly.


----------



## Flaneurette

I find it difficult to discuss music. For me it is like discussing colors, all colors have their own quality. When music is discussed it goes from the heart into the mind. It feels like discussing God. And we all know s/he works in mysterious ways...


----------



## Mundano

The necessity to express our selves in more than 3 or 4 lines, says everything from us... (zen Buddhist of the internet)


----------



## robgb

muk said:


> While it is true that Mozart could compose quickly, he did struggle with it, and his composing was far from effortlessly.


I stand corrected, then, regarding Mozart—although I suspect his definition of effort might be different than most. But the point still stands. Hard work does not necessarily equal greatness. For a more modern example, one of the greatest and most beloved pop songs of all time was written in a dream.


----------



## Paul T McGraw

jsg said:


> Absolutely! After practicing meditation for over 4 decades I can tell you that humility is hard, we humans are basically self-centered, bellicose creatures. When one sits quietly with no distractions, no eating, drinking, smoking, fidgeting, etc., all sorts of stuff arises from the subconscious mind. Negative emotions, conflicts, fears, they're all right there under the surface of consciousness. So why meditate if we have to go through all that? Because beneath (or above?) that "stuff" is cosmic consciousness, bliss, joy, peace, integration, love, happiness, and, with those things, humility. The courage to sit quietly with one's self is greater than physical courage in my opinion because it reveals stuff about personality and experience that most people spend their entire lives trying to avoid. One cannot make a conscious attempt to "be humble". That's impossible. Instead, humility arises spontaneously when the mind is quiet and receptivity to truth, beauty and goodness is is in full operating mode.



Interesting, what you describe sounds like what I experience during prayer, which I try to find time for daily, but often fail.


----------



## Rodney Money




----------



## Ashermusic

"If you propose to speak, always ask yourself, is it true, is it necessary, is it kind.” ~ Buddha

Yes, I know, I don't always follow it, but I _am_ working on it. Others here might also.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Good luck Repeat, may your life be filled with joy, creativity and positive relationships. I wish you well...


----------

