Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

Hello colleagues,

Here are the entries for the Spring 2007 "Emotions" contest. Entrants were asked to write a piece which evokes a single emotion, any instrumentation, duration up to 5 minutes. Voting is by the membership of this site. You may vote here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YC7RPXC. Deadline to vote is May 14, 5pm EST

Views: 1646

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Not at all Dave,
I like it or I wouldn't get as far as mentioning cello :)

I think you saying it wasn't emotional for you is what triggered the current discussion - I certainly didn't assume you disliked it, especially given you said it was nice (thanks!)

Ray said:

Not at all Dave,
I like it or I wouldn't get as far as mentioning cello :)

Hey Bob,  good job (to you and the others... all)

The problem I faced, with all the contests, has been,' how to

determine or define a 'level' playing field'. Something that is fair

to everyone entering. Hell, even boxers have weight classes.

I never saw this contest as a 'stump the band' type.

I saw it as a 'select' an emotion and convey that emotion thru music,

not.... guess the emotion I am trying to convey.

Regardless of the idea that one composer may only write something

for a single flute, for instance, or a small orchestra, the emotional conveyance

is, once again, Greater than the Sum of it's Parts. i e - the spirit of the piece.

HS alludes to a similar point if I understand him correctly.

SerenityOOLaine seemed perplexed to arrive at a basis for judging as well, and then

opted for his own interpretation.

Ray seems to want to play the 'technical' nit picking game without regards to the

idea that the essence of a good piece of music actually is 'greater than the sum of it's parts.(IMO)

But then, it might just be only my perspective. Scales do not turn me on. Expression does.

ps- I also voted dave's piece numero uno, because it ranked highest in my 'hierarchy'

of factors under consideration for the contest. Number of notes and technical merit were

not my first considerations.       RS


 
Bob Porter said:

Nice work, Dave. Well done.

I want to thank everyone for allowing me to maintain a solid third place in almost every contest I've entered :)

This was a hard contest for me to vote on. Only one entry even mentioned an emotion in the title. And even though each piece was emotional (isn't most music?), I had to throw out preconceptions ( pieces based on a particular emotion) and vote on what I thought was the best music. Not what best represented an emotion. So a whole different set of values came into play, for me. Though I tried to overlook production values and concentrate on the music, folks with a DAW surely have an advantage.

I voted for "Gift and Take" no. one. It starts out kind of slow, but the third section where the theme comes back, makes the whole thing worth it. Dave and Rodney were two and three for me. In fact these three pieces received equal points on my scoring system. It was tough.

Note= loud, soft, different instrument.

Pixel= bright, dim, different colors

.

All I'm saying is that some people look at an image of an elephant and all they see is dots on the screen, whereas others look at the same image and they see an elephant. The dots are identical, but the perception may not be.

Some people hear a radio transmission and all they perceive is a bunch of random beeps. Others hear the same radio transmission and they receive a message (in Morse code).

You could say music is just a bunch of sine waves. It's not wrong per se; I say that speech is also nothing but a bunch of sine waves. You can measure the frequencies, the amplitudes, plot it on graph paper, whatever.  But one could measure all that, and yet miss the words being spoken, and the meaning behind the words being spoken.

The meaning behind the words is something beyond the mere sine waves, because the sine waves are only the medium by which the meaning is conveyed; they are not the meaning itself. A bunch of random sine waves do not convey any meaning - they are merely noise; but the sine waves carrying the sound of a voice do. Furthermore, the meaning can exist apart from the sine waves: I can also convey the same meaning with text on the screen. There are no sound waves on the screen, only a bunch of pixels. But the same meaning is being conveyed by the pixels on the screen.  You can measure sine waves all day or measure pixel color intensities all day and yet not get the message being transmitted.

The sine waves and the pixels are only the medium; the message is the content.  Without the content all you have is random noise and random colored dots on the screen, that is of no interest whatsoever.

The sine waves and the pixels are only the medium; the message is the content.  Without the content all you have is random noise and random colored dots on the screen, that is of no interest whatsoever.

HS, agreed, and both are an expression and manifestion of Natures building blocks.

Once again I will say, 'the essence of expression is something greater than the sum of its parts.'  RS

The essence of expression is what the observer brings. That is why some art appeals to some people and other art appeals to other people. Those with some sophistication find taming of the shrew amusing while their Neanderthal kin chortle with moronic glee when Homer Simpson falls down.

Ferd, there are obviously two sides to the coin.

Actually' I think you might want to rethink and rephrase that statement.

The 'listener' or observer brings nothing to a composition other than

an anticipation.

Will you ever admit that there is an essence to a work of music that

transcends. or is greather than the sum of all the notes and configuration of notes,

that 'creates' something beyond the science of the work.?  

 
 
Fredrick zinos said:

The essence of expression is what the observer brings. That is why some art appeals to some people and other art appeals to other people. Those with some sophistication find taming of the shrew amusing while their Neanderthal kin chortle with moronic glee when Homer Simpson falls down.

Personally, I won't. You write the best thing you can and people have a reaction to it or they don't. They may find it transcendent or so beautiful it is beyond, somehow, but it's just a thing someone composed. The most stirringly beautiful music I've ever head is still, simply, the product of incredible talent dovetailing with my own tastes. Thanks for the vote btw.

roger stancill said:


Will you ever admit that there is an essence to a work of music that

transcends. or is greather than the sum of all the notes and configuration of notes,

that 'creates' something beyond the science of the work.?  

 

Nothing wrong with slapstick and low humour, it's not as if Shakespeare was refined and sophisticated at all times. You can enjoy both the high and the low without being either sophisticated or a neanderthal.

Fredrick zinos said:

The essence of expression is what the observer brings. That is why some art appeals to some people and other art appeals to other people. Those with some sophistication find taming of the shrew amusing while their Neanderthal kin chortle with moronic glee when Homer Simpson falls down.

dave, honestly no offense, but I think you miss the point.

Of course you are are not going to reach everyone in the audience.

But isn't your music a form of communication that you hope others

will comprehend and relate to.

 In this case here, I was referring to the product being greater than the sum of its parts,

not the idea that it was inspired by an influence over and above a composers 'assumed '

talent and ability. People don't listen to music to hear a string of notes that someone has put together.

Why DO people listen to music, and why do you think they would want to listen to yours?   RS


 
Dave Dexter said:

Personally, I won't. You write the best thing you can and people have a reaction to it or they don't. They may find it transcendent or so beautiful it is beyond, somehow, but it's just a thing someone composed. The most stirringly beautiful music I've ever head is still, simply, the product of incredible talent dovetailing with my own tastes. Thanks for the vote btw.

roger stancill said:


Will you ever admit that there is an essence to a work of music that

transcends. or is greather than the sum of all the notes and configuration of notes,

that 'creates' something beyond the science of the work.?  

 

No. I won't because there is no evidence for it. But you are certainly welcome to do so if it makes you feel better or "at one with the universe."

roger stancill said:

Ferd, there are obviously two sides to the coin.

Actually' I think you might want to rethink and rephrase that statement.

The 'listener' or observer brings nothing to a composition other than

an anticipation.

Will you ever admit that there is an essence to a work of music that

transcends. or is greather than the sum of all the notes and configuration of notes,

that 'creates' something beyond the science of the work.?  

 
 
Fredrick zinos said:

The essence of expression is what the observer brings. That is why some art appeals to some people and other art appeals to other people. Those with some sophistication find taming of the shrew amusing while their Neanderthal kin chortle with moronic glee when Homer Simpson falls down.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2017   Created by Chris Merritt.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service