|
|
Post by king2b on Oct 11, 2017 14:35:58 GMT
untitled - Full Score.pdf (40.34 KB) Without going and doing the whole score (I would if you really wanted it doing though!) Here is the opening few bars. Just going to do a few of the other bars as an example.
|
|
|
|
Post by king2b on Oct 11, 2017 15:01:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by king2b on Oct 11, 2017 15:29:50 GMT
Dark Times - Full Score.pdf (77.69 KB) And a few more obviously just a rough idea. Probably no use for what you are looking for Dave, just an idea. Have you thought of adding a piano to that obstinato bass line?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 11, 2017 16:25:58 GMT
I see what you mean (sorry, I was busy, not ignoring your continued posts) and while obviously it works great, I personally prefer the half time version - the barlines break up the phrasing rhythmically as I prefer, and one bar is one full evolution of the underlying ostinato. But I really appreciate you taking the time to rescore and feel bad that it's not what I'm after.
Speaking of the ostinato bassline - I never include piano even though it's about the only instrument of some of my favourite scores that I don't use. Not sure why. Perhaps it's overuse in bad scores as well as good. But deep piano would sound awesome here. Maybe, since the session will likely include a celeste, I'll add some piano lines for the moments not using it.
|
|
|
|
Post by king2b on Oct 12, 2017 7:05:17 GMT
I see what you mean (sorry, I was busy, not ignoring your continued posts) and while obviously it works great, I personally prefer the half time version - the barlines break up the phrasing rhythmically as I prefer, and one bar is one full evolution of the underlying ostinato. But I really appreciate you taking the time to rescore and feel bad that it's not what I'm after. I see what you mean Dave, I was just looking at it as a player/conductor. For me the idea is that I can easily read the music I have to play rather than the academic reason for something. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Oct 12, 2017 13:45:58 GMT
I get what you mean here Kevin, the score is clear, but is it worth it? I mean to say that Dave is going get this recorded by pro session players who will not have a problem reading this. I admit though it is a fine line given the moderate tempo and your suggestion of doubling values has a lot going for it. If it where to be recorded by players of a standard below session players then I'd agree with you, but I did not have a problem reading the score at all and neither will the players. Good call though Kevin and one to bear in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by king2b on Oct 12, 2017 14:06:29 GMT
I get what you mean here Kevin, the score is clear, but is it worth it? I mean to say that Dave is going get this recorded by pro session players who will not have a problem reading this. I admit though it is a fine line given the moderate tempo and your suggestion of doubling values has a lot going for it. If it where to be recorded by players of a standard below session players then I'd agree with you, but I did not have a problem reading the score at all and neither will the players. Good call though Kevin and one to bear in mind. Thanks for that Mike, I thought that I might have got it wrong. I would have thought that even pro's would like to have it easier to read as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Oct 12, 2017 14:21:12 GMT
Actually with a fresh listen Dave, I think Kevin is right. Once I reminded myself of the tempo, I realised that Kevins' solution really helps the reading, especially with the cross rhythms that are occurring. Good call Kevin. The players would still get it as it is, but I am all for getting to the point as soon as possible in a session and I think doubling the note values is clearer and the lines more comprehensible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 12, 2017 16:23:01 GMT
Well, now it's 2v1. I was thinking "ah man, so much more work" but realised surely switching to 2/4 achieves a functionally identical result? Dark Times 24.pdf (64.9 KB) |
|
|
|
Post by king2b on Oct 13, 2017 8:04:18 GMT
Well, now it's 2v1. I was thinking "ah man, so much more work" but realised surely switching to 2/4 achieves a functionally identical result? Not for me Dave I felt that doubling the values made for easier reading therefore chances of a first time hit with the musicians. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 14, 2017 18:07:50 GMT
Ah. In that case, fixing it in midi would take ages and I'm not competent enough musically to fix it in Sib!
|
|
|
|
Post by king2b on Oct 16, 2017 6:41:57 GMT
That is where I come in!
|
|
|
|
Post by king2b on Oct 16, 2017 14:15:11 GMT
Listening again and I have a feeling that the time signatures change it starts with two bars of three then one bar of two. This carries on a while till the 6/8 which I am sure should not be in 6/8. This changing times puts accents etc in the correct place. I will do the opening few bars to show you.
|
|
|
|
Post by king2b on Oct 16, 2017 14:22:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 16, 2017 14:33:52 GMT
I'll try this when next in the project, it seems like it'll make sense - I didn't think to make the percussion and brass accents the basis of the signature!
|
|
