So finally tried making a classical piano song. . .

[emjay]

I'm glad you feel that way cos it's the Rach 3 that I had in mind for my comparison, since it's the only one I know from Rachmaninov IOW what I was saying was that some of your twiddly bits ™ lol, as well as the general speed of it, reminded me of the Rach 3 That film I mentioned as having got me interested in it, was basically all about the Rach 3... and portrayed it in the same light as you did... as the pinnacle of piano writing; that not every piano player could even play it... given how fast and complicated it was, let alone compose it... so the film was about a piano genius pressured by his father to do well in a competition playing that piece, and then his subsequent adult life in the aftermath of that. It was a very good film, and made me want to hear the whole Rach 3 as I'd never heard that sort of piano playing before. Richard Clayderman is something I grew up with, so is very nostaligic to me but tbh I don't even know if he does actually compose anything, cos he just plays piano versions of popular songs as far as I know, like Andrew Lloyd Webber or whatever... I like it, but nothing he's done as far as I've heard has even approached the speed and intricacy of the Rach 3. And someone remarked that to me before... that they didn't like Clayderman specifically because his piano playing didn't use so many notes... saying basically that it lacked spirit on account of that... I don't necessarily agree on the spirit part... but anyway, between the two I've got both angles covered... frantic and less so

If you are talking about the movie Shine, it's one of my favorite movies!  I'm fairly sure you are.

Just near the end of my song, there are a lot of big, fast chords (just for a few seconds) and then some twiddly bits.  Some of my references (like to Debussy) were in there deliberately.  But I didn't consciously think how much that part sounded like Rach until you mentioned it.  Good ear!

Yeah, I was talking about Shine... I mentioned it earlier in this thread in a post to Min... that's what I meant. I think it's a great film as well, though I haven't seen it in quite a while... the last time when I did it was on VHS... so a good ten-fifteen years ago. But it was a very sad film as I remember it, and has thus infused by association a very sad character/feel to the Rach 3 for me... which also I haven't heard in quite a while, but not as long as that.

I've just listened to your piece a few more times, just to check what you were talking about, and yeah I think I see the bit you mean, and agree that bit sounds the most Rach-ish... but I'd say basically everything from the end of the last 'repetitive' bit... whatever you'd call it... chorus... whatever... to the end is the most Rach-ish to me, but there were earlier bits as well. But the more I look at it closely, the less I'm able to see whatever I saw in my first impressions, which necessarily aren't looking closely, just getting a feel for something. Anyway, I've never known what a 'good ear' is tbh; in Amadeus, Salieri said "actually the man had no ear at all, but what did it matter?... he absolutely loved my music"... which I took to basically mean he thought the guy was a musical pleb like me ... so I'm pretty sure I haven't got one, just a good ability to recognise things by sound to the annoyance of anyone watching TV with me... when no matter what we're watching I'm always calling out often obscure or aged actors by voices (or faces) and stopping to check on imdb... you know 'wasn't he the guy on x'... pause... find phone, look up... correct... continue

I have to say, that does sound pretty crap... very random... not like benny's piece at all, which was structured and had melodies.

The irony here is that I actually quite like that piece that everyone is trashing! :

But yeah, I really understand that modern music is so abstract that it's hard for many to enjoy.  TBH, I feel that way about modern jazz.  To me, it sounds like a systematized arrangement of high-velocity bee farts and train whistles.  

Maybe it's a grower not a shower? Yours was definitely a shower... that is I think it's definitely the mark of a good piece of music if you can get into it, to some degree at least, on your very first listening. But that other one looks like it would be a very slow grower, since it is a less familiar type of music. That said, my first impression of it was that it reminded me of the soundtrack to the film Hostel... in terms of the effects and instruments used, near the beginning at least... and that I do like. But the Hostel soundtrack was telling a story and I have to assume this is as well, so without knowing what story it's telling... what horror film this is the score of (j/k)... it's necessarily random and unfamiliar to listen to, and thus less appealing. But that's the key really isn't it... maybe? The more similar something is to what you've heard before... as in the types of music you're used to... the more of a shower it will be... and conversely the more novel it is in comparison to that, the more it will necessarily be a grower (or at least a non-shower)... so in other words, everything's abstract until you get used to it and when you get used to it, it integrates with what you already know and sets a new baseline for future comparison of familiar with unfamiliar.

Anyway, what do you think about Vangelis? That's a type all it's own, and I bet between you and Min, will be described by at least one of you in terms relating to bodily gaseous emissions I love the Bounty soundtrack... which is by Vangelis.