may you help me realise this comment ICWC?

 

It's an example of your cunning wit.

 

It means increase your meds.
No wait ...it means decrease your meds.
....... Maybe you'd just better wait for other replies.

 

It also means the half swan lived on, which led to the emergence of half ponds.

 

Get ready guys, Foster is back!

​

 

Last edited: Nov 18, 2018

A good example of post-tonal and minimalism era we're living in it right now when the combinations, decisions, selections, etc are arbitrary and individual-based in every aspect of our lives. Diversity is the only outcome without leading into high art, culture, society, humanity, etc and no one is responsible for the anything other than possible failures in their assigned roles and tasks.

 

A part of the book mentioned by @Agent007 :


These truths are no longer conventions to be followed, but instead are merely tools or approaches that are among those available to the composer. So what conventions do remain to guide the composer, if the rules no longer hold? None, really, which is what Stravinsky meant when he wrote of the “abyss of freedom” and of the “terror” he felt when faced with this multiplicity of choices. He went on to say that he defined a new set of compositional rules (Stravinsky referred to them as “limitations” and “obstacles”) for each work. The task of the composer is to create a work that is consistent, that is stylistically unified within its own self-defined universe. The task of the student is to try to understand what that universe is and how the different aspects of the composition fit into it.

 

My point exactly. Seems like a smart book you're reading. .
I don't know what's your point, and even if it's your's.....
Since it's not choices (Stravinski) made in the already existing realm of theory, well the author had to redefine some limits for his own body of work, so that his work itself woulf be located inside a theoritical cadre, albeit partialy new.
It was my point when I said make your own rules if the old ones or the more recent ones don't suit you. At heart all Stravinsky was doing, to quote your own quote, was to"

", not get out of any and all conventions.

Just don't be afraid. It'll be okay. New rules, old ones, new ones made by old dudes, old ones used by young dudes....
Launch your daw, turn on the metronome and play some damn music !

 

How to make or play sth like this?:

I don't know any DAW that can handle it.

 

Training, work, dedication ? Or something like that....

 

How many years?

 

Beauty comes at a price.
I can understand your criticism regarding pop, your need for more complicated, sophisticated music.
But the problem if you want to go there isn't the daw (it won't be as realistic if you setup an orchestra in it, but it'll do the trick, plenty of composers work with a daw), it is indeed about taking the times and facing the challenge of a difficult task. You'll need to go much further in your learnings, but yet nothing guarantees that anything beautifull or satisfaying for anyone will come out of it. The rules are one thing, making beauty out of them is another. It's a risk my friend, but taking it will be much more satisfaying than talking about it on a forum.

 

Romantic Era

Baroque --> Classical --> Romantic

 

This kind of music is not produced much anymore due to its analytic nature because analytic minds have been replaced with non-analytic pre-destined weak-structure followers. Going that route needs pondering more than emotion and it's a bit unusual for today's listeners.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2018

please name the pitches in the "diatonic scale" and sing me a bar or two in 13/5 time

 

Just an observation.

Comprehension tells me the part of the statement that carries the greatest weight is "any conceivable combination of pitches".

Avoiding getting into a theoretical discussion applicable to any style or genre, in its simplest form it means any harmonic structure made up from any combination of notes. From the 19th Century you can call on any number of composers. The most prevalent to be known for apparently breaking every then diatonic harmony rule, was Igor Stravinsky with minor 9th intervals. As I said I am not going deep on this it is very deep. There are plenty of them...

The statement is a sweeping statement. I'd like to see the full context how this statement was used. As an argument? As a reinforcement? As a dispute because of harmony knowledge disagreements? Whatever the origin, it is a sweeping statement out of context.

 

Just lots of cuts and pastes from this and that with narry a connecting thought...as per usual...sadly.

 

I went to high school with a fellow who after just one year of pounding the ivories could play absolutely anything. He bought a hammond B3 and blew my mind one freezing cold winter day up in his unfinished, sub zero attic.

 

Hmmm .. another reason to play a B-3 through a huge bank of tube amps.