Comparing Composers

[(poco) Sforzando]

Bach also broke a few rules. Why did he finish a number of his fugues in a major chord when he began with a minor?

Not the same thing at all. Your piece loses tonal balance by ending in a key a tritone away from its inception. And what's more, though you start with what appears to be a fugal subject, you fail to develop it contrapuntally. What you're talking about in Bach is a Picardy third that remains in the same key, but provides a stronger resolution at the ending by turning from the minor to major mode.

[Saul]

But you don't do that, Saul, not even close. You're not aware of it, but you don't. Sfz and I pointed out some of the more obvious ways; the fact is, though, that Schoenberg adheres to 'the rules' much more strictly than you do, which is bizarre given that he's the arch-modern evil one and you are the upholder of tradition.

That is breaking a rule. It's a change of mode, not a change of tonal centre. In fact, it could eassily be regarded as resolving a structural dissonance - minor to major - and thus very much in the spirit of the rules as well as their letter. Double win.

I don't see how you piece demanded those parallels, the illiterate notation or the uncalled for tonal scheme. It could easily be rewritten without all of those things, it would adhere much more closely to the rules and be a more satisfying (and legible) piece. It wasn't necessary for you to break the rules that way, Saul, the musical material didn't 'demand' it. I just think you didn't know what you are doing - the same sort of thing happens in all the pieces of yours I've looked at.

I have to go out. Enjoy the thread, everyone! 

And the horse comes marching back saying:

If you don't agree with me then you're an ignorant that lacks musical intellectuality.

Karl and Luke and some others here know how to ride this horse perfectly.

[Saul]

Not the same thing at all. Your piece loses tonal balance by ending in a key a tritone away from its inception. And what's more, though you start with what appears to be a fugal subject, you fail to develop it contrapuntally. What you're talking about in Bach is a Picardy third that remains in the same key, but provides a stronger resolution at the ending by turning from the minor to major mode.

In this case I wanted an even stronger resolution, I could have ended it in F sharp minor if I wanted to.. those people here who think that I didnt know that are dreaming. I wanted to create something stronger in the end , unexpected, so I broke a very small rule towards the end, but the piece itself is built classically and sounds classical and not like Webern's rubbish.

[Luke]

No Saul - like I said, I hate having to get all musical and technical, in that sort of way anyway. But you brought it on yourself: if you are going to on about how vital it is to follow the rules, and then post as an example of 'superior to Schoenberg' music a piece of your own which happens to flout the rules you mention countless times, you have to be prepared for comment.

And now I really do have to go out! 

[Luke]

In this case I wanted an even stronger resolution, I could have ended it in F sharp minor if I wanted to.. those people here who think that I didnt know that are dreaming. I wanted to create something stronger in the end , unexpected, so I broke a very small rule towards the end, but the piece itself is built classically and sounds classical and not like Webern's rubbish.

It's a HUGE rule, not an optional extra, not 'very small' - if there is one rule in classical tonal music, it is this one, it is absolutely central, and never broken except in the most outrageous piece. It's the conerstone of the ultra-classical sonata principle (which doesn't only apply in sonatas, btw). It's also the cornerstone to Schenker, who Sfz mentioned earlier. He said that your posts suggested that you wished all music followed Schenker's preferred underlying, large-scale I-V-I, and that is what you seem to admire so much. But your own piece doens't do it. That's a big no-no.

Stop stopping me going out 

[Saul]

No Saul - like I said, I hate having to get all musical and technical, in that sort of way anyway. But you brought it on yourself: if you are going to on about how vital it is to follow the rules, and then post as an example of 'superior to Schoenberg' music a piece of your own which happens to flout the rules you mention countless times, you have to be prepared for comment.

And now I really do have to go out! 

My piece is superior to Schoenberg's in every possible way. You just don't think so because I'm not Schoenberg.

Charm, innovation, originality, passion, melody, development, logic and sense.

Listening to Schoenberg is like listening to confused musical notes floating in the air while the only thing that makes you to make any sense of the tornado, is this imaginary 'intellectuality' that forces you to believe that you're too stupid to hate it, and therefore you must like it.

[Franco]

My piece is superior to Schoenberg's in every possible way. You just don't think so because I'm not Schoenberg.

Charm, innovation, originality, passion, melody, development, logic and sense.

Listening to Schoenberg is like listening to confused musical notes floating in the air while the only thing that makes you to make any sense of the tornado, is this imaginary 'intellectuality' that forces you to believe that you're too stupid to hate it, and therefore you must like it.

I understand this is your opinion of your own work.  No bias there.

Now go get a job teaching at a major univeristy (like Schoenberg did) and make a name for yourself (like Schoenberg did) and have your music performed all over the world by major ensembles and musicians (like Schoenberg has) and then your boast will have some basis in fact.

[Saul]

I understand this is your opinion of your own work.  No bias there.

Now go get a job teaching at a major univeristy (like Schoenberg did) and make a name for yourself (like Schoenberg did) and have your music performed all over the world by major ensembles and musicians (like Schoenberg has) and then your boast will have some basis in fact.

Oh and Mozart didnt do all that? yet Taresa had said  that:

Stravinsky's Music is 1.000.000.000 times better then Mozart...


Shooting your own foot is not what I call winning an argument.

[Mirror Image]

Shooting your own foot is not what I call winning an argument.

The reality is you have no argument, Saul. You simply have your opinion and somebody else has theirs. Music is not about winning an argument and it certainly isn't a competition.

You continue to amuse me with your ridiculous statements. Have you ever considered stand-up comedy as a profession? You would be a real hoot.

[Saul]

Here's another major headache:

http://www.youtube.com/v/BjhxYFb72q0&feature=related

[MN Dave]

[Saul]

Some liberal you are....

[(poco) Sforzando]

It's a HUGE rule, not an optional extra, not 'very small' - if there is one rule in classical tonal music, it is this one, it is absolutely central, and never broken except in the most outrageous piece. It's the conerstone of the ultra-classical sonata principle (which doesn't only apply in sonatas, btw). It's also the cornerstone to Schenker, who Sfz mentioned earlier. He said that your posts suggested that you wished all music followed Schenker's preferred underlying, large-scale I-V-I, and that is what you seem to admire so much. But your own piece doens't do it. That's a big no-no.

Stop stopping me going out 

I'm going to be sneaky and bring up the Chopin 2nd Ballade . . . .

[Saul]

I'm going to be sneaky and bring up the Chopin 2nd Ballade . . . .

I wish you polishedyour sneakiness...

[Bulldog]

Luke I never demanded a complete and total adherence to the rules, but a general dedication to them.
Bach also broke a few rules. Why did he finish a number of his fugues in a major chord when he began with a minor?
Sometimes the music demands it and takes you logically to end a piece a certain way, but that's a far call from saying that 'hey you, you broke the rules of music'...

You're always back-tracking when caught in a ridiculous premise.

Concerning the biased opinion of your 13 year old nephew, it's very amusing that you would consider the opinion of your nephew to buttress your position.

[Mirror Image]

This probably what Saul looks like in real life. I will be more cautious when I cross a bridge from now on.

[Saul]

This probably what Saul looks like in real life. I will be more cautious when I cross a bridge from now on.

This Troll is a supermodel compared to what you look like.

How many times do you change the mirror?

[Mirror Image]

You're always back-tracking when caught in a ridiculous premise.

Concerning the biased opinion of your 13 year old nephew, it's very amusing that you would consider the opinion of your nephew to buttress your position.

Usually, when someone, like Saul, is wrong, they can't think of a logical defense, so they just continue to rehash their opinions ad nauseum.

[Bulldog]

I don't think of Saul as a troll, but a very traditional and rigid type of man whose favorite rules are those devised thousands of years ago.  "Change" is not something he would find comfortable.

[Saul]

Usually, when someone, like Saul, is wrong, they can't think of a logical defense, so they just continue to rehash their opinions ad nauseum.

Only you could think of those 'logical defences'...cause you're a special troll.