![multiwinia cant see multiwinia cant see](https://raidofgame.com/uploads/posts/2019-10/1571151355_screenshot-4-multiwinia.jpeg)
maybe once that's rectified I'll be able to give a better answer to that question. But I know I can't and it's kind of bugging me. I guess the question you'll ask (and I think it's a good one) is "Do you REALLY want to write dense, jagged, dissonant, linear sounds?" Well, honestly, I'm not sure. I could figure it out for myself, but it seems more efficient to learn how they did it and dive in from there? I'm interested in writing these dense, jagged, dissonant, linear sounds, but I don't really understand how previous composers who have done similar things achieved their results. Most composers understand how Mozart works and don't have a problem not writing Mozart. I'm pretty sure I can understand how Bartok works and not write Bartok. Can you direct me to a good pedagogical resource for understanding that material? Or perhaps a good analysis of, say, the fourth quartet? I hear this talk of pitch cells and set theory and all that jazz, but I never really got it. I've listened to a ton of the stuff, so it's in my bones, but I've never formally studied it. However, I'de also like to write this piece that sounds a little bit like Bartok. I think that's a cool idea, and I think you hit me head-on with a preconception I wasn't fully aware of. So I'm going to write the relative pitch piece. Then you at least have a jumping off point for sculpting the sound you're actually hearing. And a reasonable solution seems to be to to start studying the construction of your influence. If your fingers don't magically go to the right notes then I think you're genuinely and validly stuck. We just say "I think what I'm looking for are planing quartal chords in non-retrogadable rythm with a combinatorial row on top." And even more eventually we can stop describing it in words altogether.īut what if you don't have the tools to describe the sound you're hearing? This seems likely to happen if you've listened to a lot of something, but never really studied it's construction. Eventually we don't have to relate them to specific pieces, techniques, or composers. At least that's my justification for all the hoops I've had to jump through. So we can hear a sound in our head and have a better understanding of its component parts without having to hunt and peck at the keyboard.
![multiwinia cant see multiwinia cant see](https://images.gog-statics.com/d24293f0997490c784a62f915ab275facacedb5fe8b334b3bd99fd143e1aa2ec_product_card_v2_mobile_slider_639.jpg)
This is why we study scores, and take theory classes. If the sound kind of reminds me of Debussy, I can think "okay, Debussy liked to mix scales, and he used lots of quartal, quintal, and other interval chords." So at least I can start playing with those materials and tweak them and combine them as I begin to zero in on what I'm looking for. For example, if there's a sound I have in mind and I can identify it as being tonal, I have a whole set of tools to begin figuring out what is making the sound. So I might be able to relate it to some influence and get it out that way. If I'm hearing it, it is probably related in some way to something else I've already heard or studied. That is, use the vocabulary I learned in school to describe the sound. The method that makes sense to me is to try to understand the organizational principles of the sound.
Multiwinia cant see trial#
I can try trial and error, and hit random keys until I get something that approximates what's going on, but that not so helpful in truly understanding and developing the sound or getting it exactly right. Unless my fingers go directly to the proper keys on the the keyboard (which seems like a silly thing to rely on, in my opinion), it's more likely I'll have to get at the sound another way. I have an idea of the sound I want to create, I hear it in my head. This could be especially problematic with more complex sounds. However, and correct me if you think I'm completely missing the point here, I think it's possible to be legitimately stuck if you don't have the tools to create the sound you sincerely want to create. I think this is a pitfall I fall into easily, and that's a useful notion to keep in mind. I see the value there and it's definitely changed my thinking a fair amount already.įor example, if you get stuck on something, the first thing to consider is maybe you're forcing the music in an insincere direction, because if it was truly sincere, you wouldn't be stuck. So I understand that your idea is to challenge assumptions and make me more aware of preconceived notions I didn't know were operating. At our next lesson he told me I should start a blog. "FIE!" I said! Leaving the lesson feeling troubled, and a little upset at Robin I sent him this letter a couple days later. Maybe you should stop writing for marimbas altogether." He said "well maybe it's really a relative pitch piece for cymbals, anvils, and sirens and such. I told him I hear this music but I can't find the pitches on the piano. Here's an e-mail I sent to my teacher Robin Cox.