|
|
Post by gx on Oct 18, 2018 23:23:47 GMT
Hey guys! Finally, the last movement.. I hope you like it.. I thought I'd say something about the structure, but, I don't want to affect 'how' you listen… Perhaps, later I'll say a few words.. Thank so much for listening… (this is my current favorite!  Comments are welcome and appreciated! Cheers New mix -- re-panned, less reverb, some dynamic adjustments.. soundcloud.com/gregoriox88/string-qt-1-mov-3-f15-aud |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Oct 20, 2018 7:45:40 GMT
Greg, Tippet once said that he wanted to sing free as a bird (paraphrased). I felt a sense of exploration, a spirit freeing itself and relishing a sense of discovery. One could tell that there is control balanced with an emancipation of thought that produced imaginative, almost unhindered linear propulsion. I'm waxing a bit lyrical, but do mean it. Are you now breathing in a different atmosphere on a different planet? It is interesting how counterpoint becomes important as a handle to hold on to when tonality is stretched. I found it a very strong and convincing utterance and can only imagine how powerful it could be in the hands of sensitive players who could exploit the dynamics and phrasing. You do realise that the next step is to emancipate rhythm.......  |
|
|
|
Post by gx on Oct 20, 2018 13:31:55 GMT
Thanks so much, Mike! Yes, I agree about the counterpoint being a handle … (and to some degree - in the case of 4 voice string writing, the rhythm, I felt, cannot lose too much of 'the long downbeat' - or I would feel, it would lose it's hips, (how it dances) as it were… though, I felt things were stretched in subtle ways in that regard.. In another context, I would be freer w the rhythm.. but the 4 part writing, for me only allowed so much.. it actually started as a perpetual motion idea… but that changed…).. Also, being strings, the more polyrhythmic ideas appear to the ear as not so precise, and 'smudgy'… whereas on the piano, or an instrument treated percussively, it will come off much more clearly. deliberately… Funny, long ago, of Schoenberg's string quartet - not sure which one, my sense was that he didn't apply that 'freedom' to rhythm, that he employed to tonality.. But on this idea, I was embarking on my next piece, 'Mocking bird' - where the context will allow much whacky rhythm I'll post the score - if you want to take a look. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 20, 2018 15:20:46 GMT
Greg,
This is not the kind of thing I would normally listen to. Piano or string quartet are not very high on my list. Not enough variation in sound means that the composer has to actually write good music. Which is why I don't write for them. I did enjoy the slower section starting around the 3 minute mark, possibly, in part, because it was less busy and I could 'take in' the music. But that is my shortcoming, not yours
I listened through my Sennheisers and still had a little trouble separating the instruments. Viola mostly right, and cello somewhere to the right of center. But the violins seemed on top of each other left. So it was hard for me to make out what each part was. You don't use much reverb, but I have to wonder if reverb is part of the rhythmic definition problem you might be having. If this were a studio recording of live musicians, would there much, if any, reverb?
Granted, in a concert situation, there would be an uncontrollable amount of reverb, and almost no stereo effect at all.
Which leads me to think to myself, does the situation of the performance (virtual, studio, or live) alter the composers' intent? Do we need to consider playing situations, or just write what we want? Can a particular performance ruin the music? We've all heard a performance that we though was a disaster. But was it really? The horn player came in at the wrong time and off pitch. Most of the audience didn't notice or care, but we did. We know better. The audience got to hear a live performance (rare these days), but we hated it.
Never mind, sorry for carrying on about not much. It's always fun to hear what everyone is doing. Thanks for posting a new piece of music.
|
|
|
|
Post by gx on Oct 20, 2018 18:00:18 GMT
Hi Bob. I appreciate you listening, despite the context as not being so much your cup of tea. I'm glad you enjoyed the slower section. In my 2nd mov't, much of it is slow… Thanks for mentioning about the placement - before, (in another mov't) others had commented that perhaps they were too separated, so i scooted them closer… Considering the 'playing situation', I prefer to sit 2 feet in front of the string quartet I guess that's why i may be shy on the reverb.. plus, I felt it may smudge too much the quicker passages, where there are also quick harmonic changes… Thank you for offering your thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 20, 2018 23:11:45 GMT
Gerg,
Actually I meant consider using less reverb to help with cleaner articulations.
My concern was that the violins seemed to be sitting in the same chair. That's fine if they like each other, but I'm pretty sure bowing would be a problem. Maybe it's not that important, but in a small group like this I like to be able to pick out the parts. I realize this is not a finished recording.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 22, 2018 11:08:27 GMT
As I've said before in similar circumstances, this isn't the kind of thing I would listen to or compose - but I don't think I could compose it. I would spend ages, most likely, very calculatedly trying to approach your style for eight bars without ever understanding it. It's dissonant, contemporary, atonal, distonal, atemporary, and distempory - I use those terms pretty much interchangeably - but you don't simply throw things together and call it music under the umbrella of self-expression. Your control is obvious, barring the occasional moments where it really did sound random The mockup is merely acceptable, of course. The glissandi/portamento moments are the worst offenders. Hearing this with real players would be great, which goes without saying anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Oct 22, 2018 19:20:32 GMT
I listened to this several times on Friday, but couldn't make heads or tails of it. So this morning, I decided to listen to all 3 movements in sequence. Then it all started making sense. I suspect I will have to listen to all 3 movements again several times to "get" it, but finally, patterns are starting to emerge, and I can say at this point that this is quite cohesively put together, and finely crafted with an overarching "musical story". Even if the language is completely foreign to me.  I did notice, as far as production is concerned, that the 3rd mvmt has a little too much reverb compared to the first 2. I'm pretty sure all of this will change once you finalize things, but just to put the note out there. In any case, this is seriously making me want to (temporarily) shelf my current 19edo pieces (I have 2 WIPs) and write a 3rd one that's 19edo-pantonal. Be afraid, be very afraid. |
|
|
|
Post by gx on Oct 22, 2018 21:51:56 GMT
Bob, thanks so much! I did pull back on the reverb, and panned a bit differently, and lines are much clearer to hear.. I like it much better.
Dave, thank you for your observations. I really appreciate it.. I wonder if now, if this clearer mix, if it would less dissonant to you.. (It is funny, to me this sounds very tonal… easy to sing along in many places… (I actually sang all those lines in -to find the notes )
HS, Im glad you reviewed the other mov'ts.. They are really one long mov't.. there is stuff that overlaps, and the occasional cameo) and the dramatic line is best served listening to all 3.. Also, thanks for chiming in about the reverb.. That confirmation is very helpful. I look forward to hearing your new experiments w 19edo !!
If you guys care to listen one more time, (posted a new version) it would be great to hear if my adjustments make it more acceptable… I did adjust the portamento as well,hopefully a bit less crass..
Thanks, so much!
|
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Oct 25, 2018 20:09:54 GMT
One man's tonal is another man's atonal. There used to be a time when I honestly thought Sibelius' 4th symphony was atonal. I've been struggling with 19edo... it's quickly becoming obvious that my entire musical thinking is very much entrenched in 12edo through decades of passive acceptance, and even when I write in 19edo deliberately I still subconsciously make decisions that are 12edo-centric. I think I will need a period of acclimatization where I only listen to 19edo music, so that I can start "hearing in 19edo", before I would truly feel free in writing 19edo. On a less negative note, though, I did sketch out a piece in C subminor (where the Eb is replaced by Ebb, enharmonic to D# in 19edo), and already I found many interesting new possibilities. For example, a chord progression C subminor -> C minor -> F minor. The C minor sounds "almost" like a major chord, the dominant of F minor, because the Eb sounds sharper than the Ebb, yet it's not really a major chord, so the cadence has a weaker effect than an actual C major -> F minor. The F minor can also be replaced by F subminor for a "sadder" sound, and then later contrasted with a real F minor for a slight "brightening" that's still darker than F major. There's also a supermajor (that sounds awfully close to a susp4 chord) that can function as an overly-bright major. Great for cadences where you want to exaggerate the effect (e.g., G -> G supermajor -> C instead of just G -> C). Lots of fun to be had. |
|
|
|
Post by gx on Oct 27, 2018 9:11:36 GMT
Haha.. are you saying one man's trash is another's fortune?!! These shadings of minor and major are very interesting indeed! Curious to hear what you come up with. (Bach's tuning is said to have such qualities though, not 19 notes, but, no major (or minor) scale is quite the same..) |
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Oct 29, 2018 21:40:37 GMT
Yes, one man's trash is another's fortune. I assume Bach's tuning is Just Intonation? That's where you start getting things like the Pythagorean comma, and the wolf interval, and "fun" stuff like that. Which makes me wonder, if haunting/scary music could be written by deliberately exploiting wolf intervals in JI... I haven't had much time to play around with music recently though... been busy with other stuff. So many ideas, so little time!  |
|
|
|
Post by gx on Nov 2, 2018 15:16:33 GMT
No, I don't think it was just intonation.. Here's a link, skip to "Werckmeister" and Bach's WTC - (#3) www.kylegann.com/histune.htmlNo wolf, here… Also it has been said that Bach developed his own tuning… and some have tried to figure what it was.. Here LARIPS talks of their conviction that the filigree around the title page of the WTC is actually a code for how he tuned: www.larips.com/ which I find, indeed, very attractive, and provocative … (straddling the old and new world, as it were... |
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Nov 7, 2018 22:05:14 GMT
I'm a little skeptical about interpreting filigree on a title page; if Bach had wanted to convey accurate information about tuning, wouldn't he have written it down or explicitly notated it in some way? While I'm sympathetic to the likelihood of Bach having invented his own tuning system, basing an attempt at reconstructing this tuning on the shaky basis of some decorative figures on a title page seems iffy at best.
OTOH, if he didn't intend to notate his tuning system, but merely drew the decoration on the title page as an "extra" with some (probably crude) allusion to his tuning system, then I would question the veracity of any tuning system derived from interpreting such a decoration -- it may merely only resemble Bach's actual tuning, not actually be anywhere close.
Of course, unequal tuning is a broad and highly interesting subject. The fact that modern-day equal temperament uses irrational proportions is something that disturbs me to some degree, while having an unequal tuning that has different temperaments for different keys is an attractive proposition from a compositional standpoint -- think of the greatly enhanced possibilities when each key could have its own character, to be exploited for compositional purposes. Choosing a key for a piece would become a significant artistic question rather than a merely arbitrary one (basically "randomly" picking a starting pitch -- being relative-pitched myself, my musical thinking is also highly relative-pitched), or one merely dictated by practical concerns like instrument range.
The problem is, there is no standard for an unequal tuning, so where does one even start? And how would one deal with the logistic nightmare of, for instance, tuning every instrument in an orchestra to a particular chosen unequal tuning, taking into account instrument transposition, pitch adjustments that players have already learned to make, etc.? (Of course, there is the possibility of just letting instruments play their "natural" temperament, and use that as a resource to be exploited rather than avoided or smoothed out by equal temperament. It would make orchestral writing so much more pitch- and instrument-dependent. But also much harder to transpose without destroying any subtle temperamental considerations the composer may have had.)
|
|
Comments are welcome and appreciated! 
