The "spellbinding" (Washington Post) music of Chicago-based composer Paul Novak immerses listeners in shimmering and subtly crafted musical worlds full of color, motion, light, and magic. Rejecting grandiose narratives, his work is driven by a love of small things - miniature forms, delicate soundscapes, and condensed ideas - and guided by a sense of empathy for the performers playing his music.
When you put the single squared shape note ( harmonics) how does the player know exactly where to cut the string and what harmonic should sound? Thank you
Beautiful music! I'm glad to have discovered your music. Do you know Lukas Foss' Three Airs on Frank O'Hara's Angel? I think you would like it. The middle section of that piece inhabits a similar world as this lovely piece.
This is the contemporary classical I want to hear! A clear musical direction, outstanding taste, attractive innovation and delicious harmonies. A very good piece, my compliments!
I really realy liked the first part like everyone else but then i was kinda turned off during the middle. The ending was quite good though. Well, I guess the best pieces need to be boring in some places, like perhaps this one (i genuinely hope i did not come off as offensive or stupid)
This is absolutely outstanding! Textures, rhythms, intonations, harmony-everything works perfectly. Incredible combination of Rational and Emotional. This is what I call real Art, created by a real Artist. Full of knowledge and inspiring talent. Bravo
This is super refreshing and I love how it all flows and builds so smoothly. Plus the microscopic melodies you throw in the middle are really nice. This has given me a ton of inspiration to compose
Amazing, all of the enticing elements of new complexity but economical, parsimonious even, with subtle yet clearly detectable "thematic" development and rhythmically very exciting/ very atmospheric. Among the best contemporary work I've heard in years
Literally genius. I'm almost speechless with how good this is. Rhythmically brilliant and so colorful. That third movement's opening is simply genius - like a puzzle putting itself together.
Absolutely incredible usage of extended techniques. All intonations are chosen very subtly, there is nothing superfluous, I am sure that the composer has good taste. I would also like to emphasize how good the timing is. Each musical thought sounded no more, no less, but as much as needed.
I enjoyed some of it, but didn't feel any sense of personality, just paraphrasing existing styles, how is this different or better than other pieces, what the composer's voice? I hear taste, not personality, and I'm confident Paul agrees with that, but it's likely that his ego won't let him admit that publicly. If you want to grow, you must ask the difficult, confronting questions.
@@OdeToTruth I've got no problem with asking difficult questions. They're good for getting to the bottom of things often. But, as I don't know Paul, how do I know whether he's letting his personality shine through or not? Hence, I ignore that question, and decide to listen to the music and try and appreciate it as it is, regardless of the conversation about originality. And it turns out I like this. Same thing with me finding some obscure Classical era composer I've not encountered before. To start with I'll ignore all those conversations, even the "What does it mean?" conversation, and just try and appreciate the music as it is (and as I am, from the point of view that music could be said to not exist without the listener.) Some part of my brain will, no doubt, be comparing the music to other Classical era composers, and trying to discern the composer's unique voice. And after a few listens, I'll be "attending" to that facet of the music much more. I'm certainly glad that there are folks out there who want to have the hard conversations. But I'll admit that I do find your dismissiveness leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth - seeing as, right now at the beginning of my introduction to this music, I'm deliberately not trying to approach the music the same way you are (and my desired approach is equally valid I believe.) For example, if I go to a fancy restaurant, personally I'm looking for a relaxing evening with good quality food that tastes nice, is safe to eat, and is filling and nutritious. If the person I'm dining with says, "I'm glad you think it tastes nice, but there's nothing original here. The chef is being derivative, and not letting their own personality shine through." then I'll be somewhat bummed out. Again, that might be an important conversation to have at some point. But you see where I'm coming from.
@@mrnnhnz Art isn't food and the criteria for quality is different, on top of that, taste is subjective though when speaking of art we should be as objective as possible. I just argue that this piece is generic, literally... "genre/style-oriented". Art should reflect the artist's peculiar mind, not a reproduction of an existing discourse, or it looses it's point and magic.... it's easy to just generate contemporary music... it's hard to find something to say....
Hard to know where you're coming from. You sound like a contemporary of Paul's who's disgruntled about being overshadowed by him. I believe I've made a number of valid points, whilst you've offered only criticism - both the carefully thought-out and the grumpyboots kinds. I've already mentioned that, as of right now, (& certainly on this forum,) I find the music good to listen to, and I don't want to get drawn into criticism of the minutiae. As for style, I'm not really qualified to comment, as it's been a long time since I spent reasonable periods considering this genre. But it seems both valid, and to have its own voice to me. You're absolutely entitled to your opinion, but I don't like how negatively you give it. Start your own RU-vid channel for in-depth consideration of modern composition, or a blog or something (& put your own works up there too.) This has gone on long enough, and is no longer a valid place for this conversation.
