Is this a perfectly structured composition?

Regardless of what your piece sounds likes, I think that to the question "is the structure perfect?", the answer is always "No". We can only strive to achieve perfection, and I'd argue that even the best composers in history don't have perfect structure in their pieces. But this is just arguing semantics, and has little practical use.

A few comments:

• This piece would really benefit from a second repetition of the melody AS IS, without any other development. It's not the easiest melody to lock-on to, and you cannot expect people to know it only after one pass (the golden rule of thumb is: repeat the melody always two times).
• On the first pass of the melody, the E major at 0:14 already feels like a modulation, which threw me off a bit the first time I heard it. Since you're already going out of scale, this is one additional reason to repeat the idea another time without having new ideas come in. If you meant it, and it's part of the idea, then do it twice and reassure the listeners.
• On your second pass of the melody you add waaay too many things at once: you expand the range of the music by one octave on both directions, you introduce an arpeggiated idea and you add counterpoint lines. I would expect only one of these elements on the second pass of the melody, preferably not the counterpoint lines. For the latter, another good rule of thumb is that it's probably safe to introduce counterpoint after the 3rd-4th time that people hear the main melodic idea - even though it really depends on how complicated the idea is.
• The run at 0:17 is kinda jarring to listen to, and I think that one of the reasons is the harmonic context: you're not resolving any chord harmonically, you're going from F# to F#; building up the dynamic with a run sounds weird if you're not resolving the chord to something else. It's like you want to bring the audience on an adventure, but without walking away from the starting point. For comparison, a simple V to I scale works a thousand times better - you have to find what kind of cadence you want for such passage. One easy fix would be to find a less satisfying ending to that phrase (harmonically speaking), so that you could justify anticipating the F# with a run; a F# with no inversion is already a satisfying ending to the melody, and provides no inherent drama/tension that has to be resolved, which is why that run sounds a bit silly. Another alternative would be to just remove the run and put a rest instead.
• With that final chord you're suggesting that the piece is already over (i.e. back to the tonic, no chord inversion). Is that the case? Is it going anywhere else? This is not a criticism, I'm just wondering what the intention of the piece is. Usually, when you have 30 seconds long stingers, the structure and the melodic ideas are very different from longer pieces; the length of a musical phrase/idea can usually internally suggest what the piece length would eventually be, and this piece feels like it *should* develop for at least another 2-3 minutes.

Bottom line: you're overcomplicating it way too soon and you're overwriting.

Not sure what you mean by this, but if you don't have clear view of what's happening on the piano reduction, you can't expect it to have it when you flesh out the orchestration.

 

May I also add that this is clearly not a piano sketch. It looks and sounds like your actual orchestration played by a virtual piano which is a very different thing. For the most part it isn't even playable which gives away that you probably wrote this on your daw (just guessing). In my opinion, writing this way is very limiting because you can't follow the instincts developed by transcription on an actual instrument of your choice. Apologies if I'm wrong.

 

Doing things this way will not get you very far in my opinion and soon enough you’ll realize you’re not improving anymore. The reason I’m saying this is because you’ll only be able to practice composition when you are writing, which is important of course but not the only aspect. Transcription and improvisation play a crucial role too in this discipline, and you simply can’t avoid practicing them too if you’re serious about it and I’m assuming you are given the depth of your question (is something perfect?). There is no shortcut, this stuff is fucking hard, and technology doesn’t make it any simpler otherwise we’d all be Mozart.

You don’t have to believe some random guy on the internet telling you this, just look at the history. Pretty much all the greatest composers were proficient or at least had some knowledge of an instrument (piano for the vast majority). That alone seems like a good enough reason to start putting in the work.

If you must do everything virtually I would recommend that you used a music notation software instead. It gives you a much clearer view of what it’s actually going on in your piece.

 

The fact that it might be possible and that a handful of people in history were able to pull it off, it's a ridiculous handicap that you would put on yourself; it just doesn't make much sense.

The process of coming up with an idea and translating that to a "live" piano performance, be it one note or a full symphony, enriches you in a thousand different ways. For starter, it gives you immediate feedback of what the sound is and how that makes you feel. If you play other people's music and experience it through your own play, whenever you play an original idea, your brain immediately compares it against everything else that you've learned through time (mostly subconsciously). If a chord voicing "feels" right on the piano, it's probably because you played a lot of other pieces that have similar chord voicings and that made you feel good; this, in my opinion, is a thousand times more powerful than having any kind of theoretical reasoning or justification.

Discovering on the piano this particular measure (at 0:16), and playing it, profoundly changed me, in a way that any theoretical description of it couldn't. Same story with playing a reduction of the main melody (0:26) of this piece: it completely shattered everything I thought I knew about music up until that point. This last anecdote happened somewhere around 10 years ago, but I can remember it like it was yesterday. Nowadays I have a theoretical explanation of why those passages had such a big impact on me, but describing it with words doesn't have nearly the same effect as discovering them on the piano - PERFORMING them. The fact that I can put into words something that I've learned might be useful; although using this description as a guide to learn a concept is basically useless when compared to experiencing it and living it.

Play an instrument, you will learn so much more, and you will be able to appreciate music on a deeper level. There are literally countless practical benefits from learning an instrument.

Self-taught can definitely work, but it 100% depends on the individual (of course). If you are your own judge, then you're as good as the criticism you can give to yourself (and as good as the quality of material you have access to). There are a lot of extremely talented composers who were self taught; Mike, here, is self taught - he's a brilliant composer in my opinion. There are also extremely talented performers who were self taught; Jacob Collier comes to mind, he's a beastly musician. This argument can also be flipped, there are plenty of shitty self taught musicians. The SAME ARGUMENT can be applied to academia: lots of great musicians in academia, but also many shitty ones. Depends on the amount (and quality) of dedication you put into it.

This guy, in my opinion, is just a bad example. Most of his music sounds very boring and generic to me. He's way more interested in sound design and sound production than he is in composition, which makes a lot of his work dull on a compositional level.
(I do, however, admit that his vlogs are quite entertaining)

 

Oh my, oh my. Look at how much you have grown. (imagine teary eyes over here). Seems like it was only yesterday we were having this chat

https://redbanned.com/threads/repeated-sections-in-classical-music.277/

Fly on oh composer warrior. You have grown, and will continue to.
Rest assured along your path you will continue to marvel at the depth of brilliance (and humble modesty) of my Redbanned posts.

This term really fucks people. 99.99999999999% of the time the term is either flat out bullshit, or it is stretched so far to loose any meaning.

Self reliance (aka learning to stand on your own two feet) is of course a wonderful thing, and everyone needs to learn how to do this.
The danger is when this is thought as a "hack" or used as an excuse to be lazy.

No one can really "make" you learn something like the craft of music composition. When I was at conservatory ........ I could argue this was the height of self learning. Just like the professional gigs over the year.

It breaks down really quickly (as I will assert in a second) and really none these semantics matter as much as the craft. The whole notion is so silly.
It's very much akin to "are musicians REALLY improvising, or using pre-learned patterns".

Of course he is a wonderful composer. (I know he and I differ on this subject too. So I try not to push it too far around these parts)

Off the top of my head I know Mike has :
Attended a Master Class with Dizzy Gillespie. Played percussion in his high school orchestra.
(I could be wrong about this, but I seem to recall him saying a arranging teacher, or piano, was the one who said "Transcribe every day")

Further: "When I was 14, my high school commissioned Bob Mintzer to write a composition for our top Jazz Ensemble.
It was a fantastic track called "Heart of the Matter,"

In his video on transcribing he talks about the importance of having a score, and mentions his school had the big band charts he could go read.

Thus I assume this is evidence he was in the top Jazz Ensemble, the school has great resource.

Yes, it sounds like a really shit experience at USC.
(Football player, rape case, car cut in half, hates the head of school, checks out mentally and fucks a bunch of hot women for a year.)

That said, he meet Neal (last name ?) who he has private lessons with, and they remain friends.

Add on : Countless musicians he has put sheet music in front of and gotten their feedback.

Worked as a session player, and is friends with many of the top musicians in LA

Also......transcribing is inherently an act of learning from others. It's not "chance" when passages sound like Williams, or Holst and so on.

_____________________________________________________________________

As long as I don't have to listen to it.

But seriously, this falls down quickly here too.
I saw a video of him speaking to Herbie Hancock and Jacob says to Herbie "When you showed my XYZ, it really blew my mind"

The other video I have seen is him at Indiana University and he talks about negative harmony. My point is he gives clear reference to the books.
He has an intellectual curiosity to seek out learning new things from others, and then experiments with them in his own way.

Here is where I can wrap up my diatribe:

If you are at a conservatory and your teacher says "I need you to read this book on negative harmony and come in next Friday ready to discuss with some examples" is it that much different that someone who picks up the book without a class and reads it and makes some examples.

Not really. Additionally at the PHD level no one gives you assignments like that, or wants you to bug them with petty questions. The higher you go the more "Self directed" you need to be.

The take home point is: if you are doing the work, and getting feedback, seek out learning from the best sources you can, and immersing yourself in the pursuit of your craft............then it's totally semantic, and most likely connected with our own self image as to what we identify with.

It when the assumption that one can "bypass" we are entering into murky territory.


Musicians often lie about their practice and craft.

Sviatoslav Richter often said he never practiced for more than 3 hours a day. His was another semantic argument.
From what I gather he meant "I practice for no more than 3 hours specific technical details."

So three hours practice. Then might rehearse for 2 hours with another performer. Then in the evening give a concert for 2 hours.

He had a habit of re-performing his concert by himself at night right after. Then he would practice run any upcoming recital.
For him each was separate. But your really talking 10 hours a day. The guy can play !

Basically he is playing it cool......cards close to the chest.

Or...... say Danny Elfman who used to always get mentioned in these types of chats.
(I think he is a wonderful composer and enjoy his music for the record.)

When he first became the biggest thing in film scoring after Batman everyone was in a stir about how a guy from a rock band
"totally self taught" could write the score. Well, he said he needed to enlist the help of his fellow band member Steve Bartek
how also did not know much about orchestration.

Then in a sort of Huckleberry Fin manner they both set off to complete this big task. Then like a chapter from "Atlas Shrugged" they
work 18 hours a day for weeks. At that is the whole story. Totally self learned---- no help from anyone else. Bypassed a lot.

Now, I am sure Danny stands on his own feet and he has done the equivalent of 4-5 PHD's with the amount of work he has done.

Self taught ?....................... oh look ..... the earth is flat !

 

I agree on the fact that it is semantics, and this is probably the best way to summarize it. I guess my point was that it is indeed possible to succeed without an academic background, but it all depends on the quality of study-hours you're able to pull off, and on your dedication as an individual. The only difference is that in academia you're spoon-fed information and you have easier access to qualified tutors. So it's only a matter of convenience and availability of information versus freedom of taking whatever direction you want (as a self-taught).

This is probably the best argument for completely destroying the meaning of the word "self-taught", as we're always studying concepts from other people. I guess a better way to put it is: we all have access to a ridiculous amount of information on the internet nowadays, and it's easier to be taught by people (directly or indirectly) without ever leaving the house or spending money to have face-to-face interactive lessons. Not sure if this means self-taught or not; probably not, but maybe irrelevant at this point.

Thanks for the comment, lots of interesting ideas in the post!

I was very careful in praising his skills as a performer, his organic approach to the instruments (from the "ears" to the keyboard/fretboard) lead him to a very interesting musical upbringing. I'm always blown away by how easily he can improvise some incredibly brilliant lines, on multiple instruments. I guess the line between a performer and a composer here is a little blurred, but you get my point.

Actually, I haven't completely converted to that line of thought. I am, in fact, still in favor of micro-variations between repetitions Maybe I'll get there one day, but I guess nobody is perfect

 

As a real self-taught, I can say you one thing : what I miss the most when I try to do my shit is someone looking over my shoulder and telling me what to do. Not all possibilities but one that fulfills my purpose so that I can add it to my dictionary. And I spend 90% of my time and energy trying to be that person.